2025 Net Change Limit
289 DReps voted · 67 with a rationale · 16 changed their vote · 8 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 14 to yes, 2 to no.
- Yes24.3K ₳No rationale
- No19.4K ₳No rationale
- No15.7K ₳No rationale
- No15.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes15.3K ₳No rationale
- No14.8K ₳No rationale
- No14.3K ₳Rationale
Rationale for Voting No on the 2025 NCL Info Action Proposal
Constitutionality of Threshold
The proposal sets a "50+1 lovelace%" threshold for approval, while TREASURY-01a specifies "a threshold of greater than 50%" If the 50% threshold is intrinsic to the guardrail, this slight deviation could render the infoAction unconstitutional. Still, I acknowledge a vote greater than 50% is needed to agree on an NCL.Supporting a 67% Threshold
I support a 67% DRep ratification threshold for the NCL to bolster governance rigor, ensuring stronger consensus on treasury withdrawals. This aligns with community input noted in the proposal. Though TREASURY-01a sets >50%, a threshold of 67% strengthens trust in treasury withdrawal decisions.Budget Period and Timeline Misalignment
With Q1 2025 gone, the 350 million ada NCL for a full year risks covering undeclared back payments for past work, which I oppose. The NCL should align with the remaining 2025 timeline to ensure accurate funding allocation.Urgent Need for a 2025 Budget
A budget ceiling is needed to limit 2025 roadmap withdrawals, but a competing infoAction I expect to pass reduces this urgency, reducing the need for this 350 million ada proposal.NCL Value and Budget Prudence
The 350 million ada NCL for 2025 exceeds the infoAction's base line inflow (336 million ada), leaving a deficit. I favor budgets with a surplus to ensure fiscal stability.Conclusion
I support a lower, surplus-maintaining NCL and thus vote NO.
- No12K ₳No rationale
- Yes8.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes7K ₳No rationale
- No6.8K ₳No rationale
- Abstain6.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4K ₳No rationale
- Abstain4.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes3.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes3.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes3K ₳No rationale
- Yes2.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6K ₳No rationale
- No1.6K ₳No rationale
- No619.5 ₳No rationale
- Abstain335.9 ₳No rationale
- Yes330.4 ₳No rationale
- No181.7 ₳No rationale
- Yes157.4 ₳No rationale
- No147.6 ₳Rationale
While we agree with the need for predictability and sustainability with Cardano's Treasury, we disagree with the proposed measures. Establishing percentage limits would be the best way to provide predictability and sustainability to the Treasury. See Constitutional Amendment No. 95 of 2016 of the Federative Republic of Brazil, which establishes that the growth rate of public spending will be limited to the percentage growth of the national GDP. Despite the many problems of the Brazilian administration, Constitutional Amendment No. 95 of 2016 is commendable, as it creates self-adjusting measures to the market.
We do not consider it prudent to approve GAs that require subsequent approvals. The proposed results and effects of GAs should depend as little as possible on the approval of other GAs. The GA is based on analytical studies that are not duly proven in time. For these reasons, we vote no.
We respectfully ask that you improve the proposal so that we can agree in the future. - Yes2.3 ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted0 ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
No1y agoSuperseded
- No0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale