2025 Net Change Limit Extension
32 SPOs voted · 1 with a rationale · 1 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesRevotedHistory
Earlier votes
Yes8mo agoSuperseded
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesRationale
The Net Change Limit (NCL) was established as more of a social contract rather than a limit hard coded into the ledger. There needs to be an agreed upon NCL active at the time of a treasury withdrawal in order for it to be deemed constitutional. With the current rush to pass the Critical Integrations Budget before the end of the agreed NCL for 2025, the date of the actual withdrawal was overlooked and would ultimately fall short by one epoch (at the earliest possibility) due to the associated budget info action running for its full six epoch govActionLifetime.
This is the first year of on-chain governance for Cardano and the first time a Net Change Limit has been agreed upon and run for its agreed upon term. Concerns over setting a precedent by simply extending it whenever we see fit instead of it being enforced as originally agreed upon are valid. It risks undermining the significance of having an NCL in the first place. Again, if this was proposed in order to facilitate a treasury withdrawal by anyone else other than the founding entities then I imagine it would have been met with much more scepticism than it has.
While I would have preferred to have voted ABSTAIN following these considerations, I also have to reconcile the fact that I have voted YES to Critical Integrations Budget, which cannot proceed without this proposed extension of the NCL. As a result, the current four governance actions on the table for voting are all now intertwined to the point where just one missing piece and this does not happen. It is a situation I am uneasy with but acknowledge that there is an overwhelming community consent for this to happen. I only hope that future NCL proposals are structured better so that we do not find ourselves, as an ecosystem, in a similar situation once again. Otherwise, we truly do risk undermining our own processes in the future.
This is a combined DRep/SPO rationale, while SPO votes are not socially considered with regards to net change limits, the ledger nonetheless allows SPOs to vote on all info actions. An SPO vote is submitted here to maintain the on-chain record, in the past this would reference the DRep vote transaction hash, but this is not possible when submitted in the same transaction.
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale