2025 Net Change Limit
289 DReps voted · 54 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 810K ₳ No rationale
- No 793K ₳ Rationale
I prefer this proposal over the community sourced NCL proposal in that it passes constitutionality checks, and focuses on just one year of Treasury management. The NCL limit, however, is still significantly too high IMO. Let's start conservative ($100-150M) until we demonstrate funding cycles with clear objectives, accountability, and oversight.
- No 791.4K ₳ No rationale
- No 785.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 765.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 762.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 762.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 738.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 733.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 717.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 716.6K ₳ Rationale
We, the Dutch DRep, vote "Yes" on this governance action proposal 2025 Net Change Limit.
While we did not reach consensus within our group, the majority of members expressed the desire to approve this Net Change Limit, as the result of not approving this NCL would have undesirable consequences and even further delay an already overdue Cardano budget.
We would also like to express a desire for a more structured and streamlined process for the 2026 NCL and want to emphasize that this is a spending limit, and not an amount of spending to strive for.
- No 670.2K ₳ Rationale
I voted no on this proposal for the following reasons. The Net Change Limit is essentially a savings plan, and it's critical for ensuring fiscal responsibility in the Cardano ecosystem. While I was always taught that 20% of my paycheck should go toward savings, I am closer to 90% savings going into Ada. For now, we need to recognize that the Net Change Limit is a foundational part of how we manage our funds, especially as it is used when reviewing both budget actions and treasury withdrawal actions to ensure constitutionality, as outlined by Article IV of the Constitution and the Treasury Withdrawal Guardrails in Appendix I. Given this, we cannot make any decisions until we reach an agreement, and I’m going to be firm on this. I want to vote yes to get this passed, but we must stand firm in what we believe. Why must we spend so much now, especially when this proposal doesn't account for the extraordinary growth we expect by the end of this year, driven by world adoption? In fact, we could see 10x returns this year, so why not save as much as possible? If I could choose the savings percentage, I would vote to save as much as we can. Even a higher percentage like 30% or 50% seems reasonable given the significant inflows expected over the next few years. The key point is that we should be focused on saving aggressively, given the market cap potential of Ada. I understand that the percentage of savings is something we should discuss further, but I believe it's crucial that we don't rush to pass something without thoroughly considering the long-term trajectory. The first year is a pivotal one for setting a precedent. If we are going to be able to adjust the Net Change Limit later on when necessary, it’s important to start out as conservatively as possible, ensuring we save as much as we can and only allow more spending when truly necessary. I would be in favor of a higher savings rate, like 50%, and I would even support lowering it to 40% later in the year, should circumstances require it. But let’s take a cautious, wise approach for now, focusing on saving as much as possible while we are in this early stage of development.
- Yes 654.5K ₳ No rationale
- No 651.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 624.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 601.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 587.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 559.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 555.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 536.5K ₳ No rationale
- No 534.3K ₳ No rationale
- No 521.2K ₳ Rationale
I believe the proposed 350M ADA limit, while thoughtfully aligned with annual inflows, risks encouraging spending that may not always be truly essential or efficient. History shows us that budgets set near expected inflows often become spending targets rather than ceilings, potentially leading to unnecessary resource allocation. I prefer a more conservative approach, setting a limit slightly lower to ensure that the treasury grows steadily year over year. This strategy enhances Cardano’s long-term stability, reduces unnecessary ADA0 sell pressure, and preserves the ecosystem’s resilience and attractiveness. Voting NO today upholds the principles of moderation, fiscal responsibility, and sustainability.
- Yes 501.9K ₳ No rationale
- No 473.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 471.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 466.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 445.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 443.5K ₳ No rationale
- No 438.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 409.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 403.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 385.6K ₳ Rationale
Krypto Labs advocates for a “yes” vote on this governance action, proposing a Net Change Limit (NCL) of 350,000,000,000,000 lovelace (350 million ADA) for 2025, spanning Epoch 532 to Epoch 604 (approximately January to December 2025). This aligns with our core stance from the prior action: prioritizing a fixed-amount NCL over a percentage-based one for practicality and clarity, ensuring the treasury remains robust to fund Cardano’s ecosystem growth.
The Cardano Constitution (Article IV, Section 3) mandates an NCL before budget requests, validated by Appendix I’s Treasury Withdrawal Guardrails (TREASURY-01a), requiring DRep approval. This proposal’s 350 million ADA limit is grounded in 2024 treasury inflow data (335,957,093 ADA from Epoch 459-531), within 5% of the October 2024 projection (351 million ADA), justifying its retention. Setting the NCL based on prior inflows incentivizes projects to boost blockchain utility, enhancing transaction volumes and ecosystem value—key to Cardano’s ascent among layer 1 blockchains.
We favor this approach over a percentage-based NCL due to its simplicity and direct link to tangible outcomes, avoiding the complexity of fluctuating inflow calculations. The 350 million ADA cap ensures sustainability, balancing withdrawals with inflows to maintain Cardano’s “financial hammer” for innovation and adoption. Community feedback suggesting a 67% DRep threshold (matching treasury withdrawal standards) is noted, but the Constitution requires only >50% active voting stake, which we adopt for this vote.
Voting “yes” ensures transparency, accountability, and alignment with constitutional mandates, enabling budget and withdrawal actions without risking depletion. As community members, Krypto Labs emphasizes timely approval to prevent delays that could stall Cardano’s progress, fostering long-term growth and competitiveness. - Yes 382.6K ₳ Rationale
We should fix the amount of ADA withdraw from our treasury to make sure it will not effect in price of ADA much.
- No 379.9K ₳ No rationale
- No 377.3K ₳ Rationale
I'm voting No on the net change limit of 350 million ADA as proposed by the 'budget committee'. As discussed in detail in https://forum.cardano.org/t/fundamental-critcism-of-the-budget-process/143519#p-367722-net-change-limit-2, the treasury will almost certainly only grow by roughly 300 million ADA in 2025 and I don't want to start spending from the treasury stock yet. It is true that the methodology employed by the 'budget committee' now after a lot of questions would prevent unlimited spending – it will go down to this year's earnings next year if they continue to use that methodology. But the genesis of this proposal sets a bad precedent on how to go about such matters.
- No 365.3K ₳ No rationale
- No 341.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 332K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 328.9K ₳ No rationale
- No 323.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 321.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 314.4K ₳ Rationale
Rationale on: "2025 Net Change Limit" Voting
The Net Change Limit proposal appears well-considered and justified based on last year’s inflows. This sets a rational precedent for formulating fiscal policies within our ecosystem. However, I would prefer the proposed amount to be grounded in actual figures rather than projections. The actual 2024 inflow was approximately 336M, while the October 2024 projection stood at 351M. Given that we are now in April 2025, it seems reasonable to revise the number based on these actuals.
I’m deeply uncomfortable with a Net Change Limit of 350M ADA, and I would much prefer the community-led proposal of 300M ADA that unfortunately didn’t pass. The 2024 inflow was lower than 350M, and the projected 2025 figure is also below this mark. This means we risk spending more funds annually than we accrue, which seems unsustainable.
I acknowledge that without a Net Change Limit in place, our ecosystem remains in a stagnant phase, unable to fund pressing budget proposals. As we operate in a competitive industry, delaying decisions might jeopardise our position and competitiveness relative to other blockchains.
Moreover, I view the NCL as a spending ceiling rather than a target. In my experience, businesses often aim to exhaust their budgets due to concerns about future cuts if not fully utilised. I hope this isn’t true for us, since every ADA holder has a direct interest in our treasury’s sensible management. As such, while I am inclined to support the NCL proposal, I’ll be vigilant when evaluating individual budget proposals and will scrutinise them diligently. Each budget request should have a clear return on investment (ROI) - not necessarily monetary, but demonstrating the value and utility it brings to our ecosystem.
I’d really hoped for another, lower NCL proposal to appear before this one expired. Since this doesn’t seem likely, I would reluctantly vote “YES” in order to start building and avoid further disruptions.
Additional remarks:
- I welcome any other lower NCL that might appear in the future, and I would most likely vote in favour of it (my ideal NCL would be set at 300 million ADA).
- If I had 100k ADA available, I would submit a new NCL proposal at 300M ADA (only for 2025).
- It’s imperative that we do not lose even a single day more; it’s mid-April, and starting a new GA cycle would lead us into the second half of the year before we begin investing funds.
- Withdrawals from the treasury are investments, and as such, I would evaluate them carefully. If a proposal is not linked to clear results, I would be very hesitant to support it.
- Yes 313.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 298.6K ₳ Rationale
It is important to remember that the NCL itself does not dictate how much will be spent in a year, but rather only how much can be spent that year.
The DReps will still have an opportunity to reject treasury withdrawals as they arise.While the proposed amount of ₳350M is a tad high for my liking, it is not so high as to justify stalling the budget process.
I am voting YES on this governance action.
Signed,
William Doylehttps://github.com/willpiam/drep/blob/master/vote_context/markdown/9_ncl_2025.md
- No 295.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 271.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 262.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 261.3K ₳ No rationale
- No 258.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 257K ₳ Rationale
While I understand that setting a Net Change Limit does not mean it is necessary to spend the maximum amount specified by that limit, I have, however, seen this exact scenario play out repeatedly over the years. A higher potential for covering expenses, inevitably leads to higher expenses. Also, I feel it would be irresponsible to to set the 2025 NCL to the entire projected yearly treasury income.
It is for these reasons that I am voting NO to this proposal. I feel that a 350M NCL is excessive and is not beholden to a fiscally responsible approach and would incentivize unnecessary and unneeded spending.