2025 Net Change Limit Extension
220 DReps voted · 75 with a rationale · 5 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes409.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes389.1K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted381.1K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes7mo agoSuperseded
- Yes365.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes341.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes328.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes320.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes314.4K ₳Rationale
This Info Action does not increase spending; it simply ensures business continuity and compliance with the Cardano Constitution. Therefore, I vote yes!
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
This Info Action does not increase spending; it simply ensures business continuity and compliance with the Cardano Constitution. Therefore, I vote yes!
- Yes313.4K ₳Rationale
YES vote on the 2025 NCL Extension. Rationale: To protect continuity in the governance system and prevent a constitutional committee "no" vote.
This action doesn’t change the Net Change Limit, raise the cap, or replace the existing NCL.
It just extends the time window by 8 epochs so that Treasury Withdrawal Actions can still be lawfully enacted under Article IV.Without this extension, the current NCL expires before key actions, including the Critical Infrastructure action, can be enacted. Even if DReps overwhelmingly support those actions, they would almost certainly be deemed unconstitutional at enactment because the NCL window would have closed therefore i deem this action to be necessary.
- Yes298.9K ₳Rationale
Thanks to the good dog HOSKY for noticing this. I see no issue with this proposal. This proposal is also important to ensure the Critical Integrations budget and withdrawal can proceed without issue. I am voting in favour of this proposal.
- Yes271.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes261.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes261K ₳Rationale
[EN] approve the 2025 NCL extension as it keeps the 350M ADA spending cap unchanged. It's just a minor 8-epoch time shift to fit open governance actions and prevent disruptions—given the CC seat reelection and recess period. Not extending could lead to greater downsides.
[PT]Aprovo a extensão do NCL 2025, pois mantém o teto de 350M ADA intacto. É apenas um ajuste temporal de 8 epochs para alinhar ações de governança abertas, evitando disrupções – especialmente com a reeleição de um assento no CC e o recesso atual. Não estender traria mais riscos.
- Yes260.2K ₳Rationale
Extending the 2025 Net Change Limit (₳350M) for 8 more epochs ensures smooth Treasury operations.
Administrative measure, no extra spending, fully aligned with Cardano Constitution. - Yes252.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes245.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes238.8K ₳Rationale
I vote yes with the following understanding:
- Maintains continuity in treasury operations without increasing the overall spending cap—all prior withdrawals continue to count against the original 350M ADA limit.
- Preserves the community-agreed guardrails under Article IV of the Cardano Constitution, ensuring fiscal responsibility and sustainability.
- Provides a brief bridge period while the community prepares and socializes a new Net Change Limit for 2026, avoiding any unnecessary governance vacuum.
- Yes235.2K ₳No rationale
- No233.2K ₳Rationale
Vote: NO
Why:
The NCL extension just gives the 70 M request by the founding entities more breathing room. It doesn’t fix the missing breakdown, the founding entities’ track‑record, or the confidentiality clauses that hide how the money will actually be spent. In fact, a longer window makes it easier for a shaky proposal to slip through, so I see it as a net‑negative for the 70 M plan.Extending the deadline only prolongs the risk of a poorly justified withdrawal. If the treasury can’t commit to a transparent, well‑justified spend, giving it more time isn’t a good trade‑off.
- Yes228.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes215.5K ₳Rationale
I’m voting YES because keeping the net change limit in place is simply a safety measure. It protects the system from sudden or unnecessary constitutional changes while governance continues to mature. There’s no downside to extending this safeguard, and it keeps things stable.
- Yes191.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes182.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes178.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes174.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes166.4K ₳Rationale
8 more epochs.
- Yes147.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes138.4K ₳Rationale
Proposal Well align.
- Yes137.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes129.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes115.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes110.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes108.3K ₳Rationale
I am in favor this proposal. This extension to the NCL is a relatively small change that is required to maintain the constitutionality of the integrations budget proposal. Although changing the length of something like an NCL should never be done without serious consideration, in this case the affected proposal warrants the change in my view. It would be detrimental to the community to have this budget fail and be delayed due to a constitutional technicality. Thank you to those who identified this issue and acted quickly to rectify it.
- Yes89.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes69.4K ₳Rationale
This is a no-brainer Yes. It's:
Non-controversial — no new spending authority, just timeline
Necessary — avoids a constitutional gap
Conservative — 8 epochs is modest
Well-reasoned — clearly explains the enactment delay issue - Yes67.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes64.5K ₳No rationale
- No58.6K ₳No rationale
- No55.9K ₳Rationale
This is an ad-hoc, rushed, temporary solution to a unnecessarily created problem (submitting a TW GA that vacuums up the remainder of the NCL last minute). That GA could easily wait until an NCL 26, or, even better, an alternative budget control mechanism than a speed limit, is defined.
A) There is no issue with NOT spending the whole amount of the NCL, in fact, it would be a great sign of ecosystem maturity, if the speed limit isnt maxed out immediately.
B) There is no reason why the Critical Integrations Budget TW gets a special treatment and shouldnt wait until things are in order again. After all, defining a new NCL takes the same time as accepting this weird short time extension.
C) chill the f out and think forwardly. dont just look 2cm in front of your toes. - Yes51.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes50.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes49.6K ₳Rationale
I find value in the extension of the NCL EPOCH boundary. This proposal is required to move forward with the evolution of the blockchain as is proposed within the Cardano Integrations Governance action submission by the PENTAD. I vote Yes. The foresight of the community members that submitted this proposal for an extension is welcomed with open arms and gratitude is extended. To move forward at times you must look back to see what was set forth to lead you on your current path.
LOURDEOuroborus Imperator Aeternalis - Yes48.6K ₳Rationale
good
- Yes46.5K ₳Rationale
The delivery status of the whole first year 2025 pilot is still delayed
so by the delaying of the whole deadline will help to save the treasury instead.
But with the condition to have fix DEADLINE (No more delay after this round)
If the team cannot delivered their approved budget, it should be returned back to the treasure for better team/or future NCL 2026 - Yes45.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes41.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes39.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes30.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes29K ₳No rationale