2025 Net Change Limit
289 DReps voted · 54 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.3M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 1.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.8M ₳ Rationale
Although 350k seems high to me, I think it important not to hold up the ability for Cardno budget requests. I could see there maybe being an emergency, like a security issue, where having a buffer of funds may be helpful.
- Abstain 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.6M ₳ Rationale
While I support the principles of structured governance and long-term planning, I am voting against this NCL for the following reasons: 1. Approving a 350M ADA limit without clear details on allocation or specific project plans makes it difficult to justify such a large potential withdrawal. There are no visible checks or accountability mechanisms tied to how this amount will be managed or monitored. 2. Authorizing such a high cap could weaken the treasury’s long-term sustainability. Without clearer priorities or constraints, there’s a real risk of inefficient spending or missed opportunities in future cycles. 3. I would be more comfortable voting for specific projects or a proposal with a narrower, more defined scope. Approving this limit as-is, without knowing how it will directly benefit the ecosystem, makes it hard to vote yes in good faith.
- Yes 1.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.2M ₳ Rationale
I agree to set the Net Change Limit (NCL) to 350 million ADA for 2025.
Enabling treasury withdrawals to fund Cardano’s ecosystem growth without risking depletion. - No 1.2M ₳ 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.
- Yes 1.2M ₳ Rationale
I’m voting “Yes” on this governance action.
As mentioned in the body of this submission, an agreed upon Net Change Limit is required before any budget draws can be made from Cardano’s treasury to support proposed Cardano-based projects and initiatives.
The spending cap put forth in this GA is reasonable and how the figure was derived is explained clearly. A Net Change Limit is meant to protect the treasury from abuse and ensure that it remains sustainable while the ecosystem continues to build and expand.
Right now, the treasury is slowly dwindling. Until Cardano can successfully boost the amount of transactions on its chain (hopefully with the arrival of Leios and Hydra) it’s critical that treasury funds be managed with extreme care, while also allowing enough room for spending on critical innovation, development, and community engagement activities. The proposed Net Change Limit appears to achieve that.
- Yes 1.2M ₳ Rationale
The proposed amount strikes a good balance between enabling Cardano's continued development, growth, and a buffer for potential price depreciation on one hand, and preserving adequate treasury funds on the other. Approving this NCL is by no means a mandate to spend the entire amount. Budget proposals will only be approved if deemed appropriate, and individual treasury withdrawals will be assessed with regard to the ADA price. We should seize the time—now is the time to act; in the future, we may shift to a more conservative NCL approach.
- Yes 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1M ₳ Rationale
I voted against the proposed 350M ADA Net Change Limit because it represents fundamentally unsound fiscal governance. Setting a fixed ADA amount rather than a percentage of treasury revenue ignores basic economic principles and creates dangerous spending incentives. A dynamic threshold of 77-88% of the previous year's revenue would ensure sustainable treasury management while maintaining flexibility for ecosystem growth.
The proposed 350M ADA ceiling exceeds last year's revenue, effectively normalizing deficit spending. We're still in the early stages of Cardano's evolutionary journey - establishing responsible fiscal guardrails now is crucial. While some may argue this enables more 'investment' in ecosystem development, history shows that untethered spending authority inevitably leads to waste and misallocation. The community must resist the siren song of easy money and instead embrace sound monetary principles that have proven successful in traditional finance.
Building a truly decentralized financial ecosystem requires discipline, not profligacy. My 'No' vote stands for sustainable growth over short-term gratification.
- Yes 1M ₳ Rationale
Basic Issue
Cardano needs to set a spending cap—called a Net Change Limit (NCL)—on how much can be withdrawn from the treasury for the year 2025. Without this limit being formally agreed on, no budget proposals or withdrawals can legally happen for that year.Current State
There is no official Net Change Limit set for 2025.
Treasury spending for 2025 is not authorized under the Cardano Constitution.
Projects and governance actors cannot submit budget proposals yet.End State (What’s Changing)
A Net Change Limit of 350,000,000,000,000 lovelace (350M ada) will be formally established.
This limit applies to the period from Epoch 532 to Epoch 604 (January to December 2025).Once approved:
Budget proposals and treasury withdrawals can be made, up to that cap.
The ecosystem enters an annual budget cycle with a clear spending boundary.
The limit is based on 2024’s treasury inflow (~336M ada), aligning spending with income.Why It Matters
It ensures constitutional compliance, budget transparency, and financial responsibility.
It enables projects to start applying for funds.
It links treasury usage to actual blockchain usage and performance—rewarding ecosystem growth. - Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 985.7K ₳ Rationale
As a DRep, I voted ✅YES on this proposal.
It sets a maximum treasury withdrawal limit for 2025—not a requirement to spend the full amount.
This acts as a guardrail, while DReps still vote on each individual budget/withdrawal request. I support this to help move forward with treasury planning.
- Yes 955.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 947.9K ₳ No rationale
- No 935.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 920K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 881.3K ₳ No rationale
- No 860.4K ₳ No rationale
- No 849.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 819K ₳ No rationale
- No 818K ₳ Rationale
We recognize the importance of a Net Change Limit (NCL) being approved to unlock the access to the treasury, but this must be made both with the highest quality standards and with the best economic analysis. Always having Cardano's resiliance as a top priority in mind.
We vote "NO" for 2 reasons:
There us ambiguity in the term of the NCL being proposed. From the text it can be interpreted that it would last for 72 epochs but from the epochs described it would be 73 epochs. This lack of clarity apones the door to future governance problems. We invite proposers to resubmit this proposal without this error.
We are convinced that the NCL should be determined as a percentage of the treasury's balance not as a fixed amount. This eliminates the necessity to guess future income tothe treasury providing aditional layer of resiliance to the treasury management.