Decrease Treasury Tax from 20% to 10%
313 DReps voted · 77 with a rationale · 6 changed their vote · 9 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 3 to yes, 3 to no, together voting with 138.5M ₳ of voting power.
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- No7.7M ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted7.6M ₳Rationale
The proposed governance action [Decrease Treasury Tax from 20% to 10%] asks for an immediate reduction of the initial 20% treasury cut that was set at the launch of Shelley to the lowest possible rate of 10%. The Cardano constitution permits the value for the "treasuryCut" parameter to range between 10% and 30% (0.1 to 0.3).
This motion specifically requests change of the the parameter "treasury_growth_rate". It proposes the parameter be halved from 0.2 to 0.1.
However, the "reasoning part" of the motion does not mention the treasury_growth_rate parameter - specifically. I was also not able to find the parameter in the linked documents to this motion.
The reasoning in this motion references mentions "tau", "treasury cut" and "treasury tax". The proposal does not directly confirm that this is in fact the same parameter that is proposed for reduction as the "treasury_growth_rate" parameter .
However, this has been cleared up by IO Engineering Head of Product for Cardano Samuel Leathers who posted: "It's tau in Shelley Genesis. CLI team made the human readable name treasuryCut. DB sync made the human readable name treasury_growth_rate. all 3 are names for the same thing." [https://x.com/therealdisasm/status/1893361564780032172]
Knowing all the terms above refer to the same thing, it makes it possible to vote on the proposed change.
My vote will be AGAINST this specific motion, but it is likely that I would support a gradual decrease of the tau parameter in the near future under similar circumstances. This would also allow us to observe the effects of such changes and also it would set a precedent for gradual changes of economic parameters, which I think should probably be the norm when possible.
Cardano is now a global financial system that DReps should carefully steer if possible. I have not been convinced there is a need for a sharp swing from 20% to 10% as there is no impending catastrophic event that prevents us to chose a gradual reduction.
If we are building a financial system, there is something to be said for financial predictability and gradual change. Outsiders looking at Cardano as an alternative financial system will look at how we manage change. Change is systems like this is supposed to look like gradual evolution - whenever possible.
Disclosure of conflict of interest/bias:
If voting YES: As an ADA holder, I have a conflict of interest here, as there is a possibility that my staking income will increase by supporting this proposal. As a Catalyst Community Reviewer and Milestone Reviewer, I stand to potentially indirectly benefit from the continued and larger financing of Catalyst from a larger treasury. However, this conflict will be mitigated by the fact that I intend to either ABSTAIN on any future vote about the budget component/bucket that will involve funding for Catalyst or even vote NO if I find that the requested budget component/bucket that includes Project Catalyst is too large. I will never vote YES to finance Project Catalyst, due to my conflict of interest and my intention to remain objective. Also, I stand to benefit from possible DRep compensation if approved from the Treasury. However, this is something that I do not support and I will not vote in favor of DRep compensation. I think a vote on DRep compensation should not be packaged with other items and should be separate from the annual budget.
If voting NO: I am not aware of a conflict of interest. As an individual paying member of Intersect, I am watching the Intersect budget process - but I am not a paid or unpaid member of any Intersect working group, committee, organ or team.
I am not an SPO, a member of a Cardano dev team or Cardano project. Nor am I affiliated or ever was affiliated with IOG, Emurgo or Cardano Foundation.Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- No7.3M ₳No rationale
- No6.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.5M ₳No rationale
- No5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7M ₳No rationale
- No5.5M ₳No rationale
- No5.5M ₳No rationale
- No5.2M ₳No rationale
- No5.2M ₳Rationale
DRep VCC vote ❌ NO on this proposal for the following reasons:
👉 There is no clear evidence that reducing the contribution to the Treasury will increase the number of staking participants. This requires concrete data and analysis rather than assumptions.
👉 The Cardano ecosystem needs more resources from the Treasury, not only to fund development projects but also to boost marketing, attract new users, and support liquidity for DApps. Reducing the Treasury’s funds could slow down these efforts.
👉 A slight increase in staking rewards does not bring significant benefits to delegators, whereas strong investment in ecosystem development creates real value, helping ADA appreciate sustainably. The focus should be on long-term growth rather than short-term benefits.
- Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- No5.1M ₳Rationale
Why I’m Voting ‘No’ on Reducing the Cardano Treasury Tax
A Check on Overspending
The treasury tax was set at 20% from Cardano’s early days to fuel growth and innovation. It’s a high bar by design. Recent discussions, like the Intersect budget proposal, have sparked fair concerns about spending creeping beyond what’s sustainable. Cutting the tax might seem like a quick fix to limit funds and force discipline, but I see it differently. Keeping it at 20% gives us room to prioritise high-impact projects while maintaining oversight. Lowering it now risks underfunding the very initiatives that keep Cardano competitive.Our Network’s Safety Net
Think of the treasury as Cardano’s insurance policy. Staking rewards drive our ecosystem today, but they’re not guaranteed to cover all future costs, whether that’s development, security upgrades, or market downturns. A robust treasury, built from the 20% tax, ensures we’re not caught short when needs arise. Reducing it to 10% shrinks that buffer at a time when we can’t predict tomorrow’s challenges. I’d rather hold steady now than scramble later.Managing ADA’s Circulation
From a practical angle: the treasury tax pulls a chunk of ADA out of circulation, acting as a natural brake on supply. Dropping it to 10% would release more coins into the market, potentially a lot more. With whispers of a strong market cycle ahead, this could flood circulation, pressuring ADA’s value when stability could be our strength. Timing is critical, and this move feels like a risk we don’t need to take yet.Open to Future Review
I’m not against adjusting the tax forever. If we see clear evidence of efficient treasury spending over time, say, after a year of consistent budget reviews, I’d be open to revisiting this. For now, the case for caution outweighs the push for change. The treasury’s role as a stabilizer, both financially and economically, is too vital to weaken today.
This vote reflects my best judgment as your DRep, but it’s your delegation that drives me. I’d welcome your input, agree or disagree, let’s talk. Cardano thrives when we shape it together. Find me on X or LinkedIN to weigh in.
Peter Horsfall, Cardano DRep
February 19, 2025 - No4.9M ₳No rationale
- No4.8M ₳No rationale
- No4.6M ₳No rationale
- No4.6M ₳No rationale
- No4.5M ₳No rationale
- No4.4M ₳Rationale
Coin Ceylon DRep Rationale for Voting NO on the Treasury Tax Reduction Proposal (20% → 10%)
At Coin Ceylon, our role as a DRep is to ensure that governance decisions support long-term sustainability, decentralization, and the growth of the Cardano ecosystem. After careful consideration of the proposal to reduce the Treasury tax rate from 20% to 10%, we have decided to vote NO based on the following critical factors:
Ensuring Long-Term Ecosystem Sustainability
The blockchain industry remains dynamic and evolving, with significant work still needed in infrastructure, research, and governance. Innovations, emerging market opportunities, and strategic partnerships are continuously reshaping the landscape. For Cardano to thrive, it must seize these opportunities while ensuring that its systems remain efficient and robust. Cutting the treasury tax to 10% at this stage risks limiting the funding necessary for these crucial efforts, potentially slowing development and innovation just when competition is intensifying. A robust treasury is essential for Cardano to pursue new opportunities, strengthen its ecosystem, and maintain a competitive edge in a rapidly advancing industry.Staking Incentives Should Be Addressed Through Adoption, Not Treasury Cuts
While increasing staking rewards is an important goal, simply boosting them by reducing the treasury tax is only a temporary fix that does not resolve the underlying issue of low transaction volumes. If transaction fees remain low, staking rewards will continue to diminish over time—regardless of any tax adjustments. Instead, our focus should be on driving adoption, enhancing scalability, and increasing transaction volumes. A stronger, more widely adopted network will naturally result in higher staking rewards without compromising the essential funding needed for ongoing development.Treasury Funding is Essential for the Upcoming Cardano Ecosystem Budget
As we prepare to submit the first-ever Cardano Ecosystem Budget—supported by a net change limit of 350M ADA—it is crucial to ensure that the treasury remains well-funded. Reducing the treasury tax now would negatively affect the net replenishment rate, thereby reducing the funds available for critical budget withdrawals. With 2025 poised to be a pivotal year for blockchain and cryptocurrency adoption, Cardano must remain competitive through increased exposure, adoption, and ecosystem expansion. This requires substantial funding for marketing, education, partnerships, and technological advancements. An immediate tax cut risks undermining Cardano’s capacity to make these essential investments at a critical time.Treasury Reserves and the Impact of a Rapid Tax Cut
Treasury funds are allocated strategically and transparently to support Catalyst, governance initiatives, and long-term ecosystem stability. Importantly, unclaimed staking rewards—returned to the reserve—effectively increase the actual treasury accumulation rate beyond the nominal 20%. Dropping the treasury tax abruptly to 10% could therefore have a more significant impact than it appears on the surface, introducing unnecessary risk by potentially underfunding future development. Maintaining a robust treasury is crucial to support decentralized decision-making and innovation, particularly as Cardano transitions into the Voltaire era.A More Strategic Approach is Needed
Rather than an immediate reduction to 10%, a phased or conditional approach would be a more responsible alternative. For instance, a gradual step-down—from 20% to around 17% or 15%—would allow the ecosystem to assess the impact without disrupting treasury funding. Additionally, implementing a dynamic treasury tax model that adjusts based on transaction volume, treasury reserves, and governance funding needs could provide a better long-term solution. Cardano’s governance should prioritize strategic, data-driven economic adjustments that reflect current market conditions and network growth.
Conclusion
At Coin Ceylon, we remain committed to ensuring Cardano’s long-term success. While we recognize the importance of boosting staking incentives, we believe that maintaining a well-funded treasury is critical for sustaining innovation, governance, and ecosystem development. With the impending launch of the Cardano Ecosystem Budget and 2025 marking a crucial period for blockchain adoption, preserving treasury funding is essential to support critical investments in exposure and growth. For these reasons, we are voting NO on this proposal at this time.
We encourage continued dialogue on sustainable treasury management and remain dedicated to supporting thoughtful, evidence-based economic governance for the Cardano ecosystem.For more in-depth information on our voting rationales you can visit our DRep page at - www.CoinCeylon.com/Drep
- No4.2M ₳No rationale
- No4M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I have voted no on the proposal to reduce the tau parameter and lower the transaction tax that funds the Cardano treasury. While there are appealing arguments for this change—such as increasing rewards and short-term liquidity for ADA holders or reducing user friction—these benefits are overshadowed by significant risks at this pivotal moment in Cardano’s development.
First, we are navigating a period of financial uncertainty. The shift to democratic governance has introduced an untested budgeting process, and we lack data on whether it will sustainably manage treasury outflows. We don’t yet know the baseline for spending or whether the treasury might face depletion. Reducing tau now, before we’ve established stability and accountability in budgeting and finalized key variables like maximum change limits, risks undermining our financial foundation. I’d rather see a proven track record of fiscal responsibility before adjusting inflows.
Secondly, a robust treasury is Cardano’s best safeguard for long-term success. By maintaining—and ideally growing—our reserves, we can build a sovereign wealth fund akin to those in Norway or Abu Dhabi. Such a fund would provide a steady cashflow stream, compounding over time to seize future opportunities or buffer against downturns on the road to mass adoption. Short-term spending gains pale in comparison to this vision. Cardano aspires to be a country-scale financial ecosystem, and that ambition demands prioritizing financial resilience over immediate outflows.
Finally, governance introduces a human risk: the tendency to treat the treasury as “other people’s money.” This mindset can bias DReps toward overspending, especially on justifiable projects, without feeling immediate consequences. Given that our governance system is new and many DReps may lack experience with large-scale treasury management, we need prove we can foster a culture of fiscal discipline. Reducing tau before we’ve demonstrated prudent budgeting amplifies this risk.
In closing, lowering tau now would be a premature gamble. Cardano should prioritize stability, prove the budgeting process works, and grow our treasury to secure Cardano’s future. I urge fellow DReps to vote no until we have the data and governance maturity to choose when and how much to reduce tau.
Hat-tip to @earncoinpool, @amw7, @Orbital_Lexicon and others for their clear reasoning why Tau should be reduced now. The arguments were compelling, but I believe the timing isn’t correct.
Also a hat-tip to @JaromirTesar, and @Hoskytoken for their strong arguments against the change. Both sides helped me form my opinion.
- Yes4M ₳No rationale
- No3.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.9M ₳No rationale
- No3.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.6M ₳Rationale
We discussed this internally with delegators who are part of our telegram channel... Our rational for voting yes is as follows:
a) Increases rewards for delegators
b) We want to see parameters tweaked and do not believe we should be afraid to try things - especially given what we have seen with other parameters such as k and a0
c) We can always change back or adjust the parameter again if needed
d) Treasury will still be sizable
e) We do not know fully yet how funds will be spent and it could be interesting to see how they go with the first round - No3.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes3M ₳Rationale
Cardano's tax rate of 20% was never intended to stay at 20% forever - like all parameters it needs to be adjusted over time to account for system growth.
Arbitrarily set at 20%, this tax rate helped us grow a massive treasury that can now be used to fund substantial innovation for our blockchain.
Now that we have a large reserve to work with, we need to address the issue of market competition. Cardano is not in the number 3 spot, there are many other products we are competing for in the financial market space.
When interest rates were absurdly low, an annual return of ~3% seemed very good compared to what was being offered by banks, but this is no longer the case.
Cardano is primarily an investment product - that is where the majority of its value is derived, and why people buy it and hold it long term.
Lowering the tax rate on ADA will incentivize further investment by increasing delegator rewards for everyone, especially in a market saturated with other options offering high ROI.
I am also of the mindset that higher taxation does not equal better improvements or experience for governments or blockchains.
Leaner taxation means that ADA holders (the people who the blockchain is beholden to), get to decide what they'd like to do with their ADA (instead of governments) and I believe this is the right decision for both Cardano and with fiat governments.
A lower tax rate also means that we will need to be more efficient with government spending, and more critical of what is being allocated for in each budget.
Considering the spending put forth in the budget for Cardano 2025, it is already evident that overspending is an issue that needs more oversight going forward.
Accountable spending is a challenge fiat governments cannot manage to accomplish today, and we need to solve for this on Cardano early so that we do not fall into the same trap. Lower taxation helps remedy this issue.
- No2.8M ₳Rationale
No on Treasury Cut Reduction Proposal
After careful consideration of the proposal to reduce the Cardano treasury cut from 20% to 10%, I have decided to vote no. While I acknowledge the potential benefits of increased staking rewards and the theoretical potential for improved decentralization, I believe the proposal, as presented, carries significant risks that outweigh the potential gains and ultimately jeopardizes the long-term health and sustainability of the Cardano ecosystem. My reasoning is detailed below:
- Over-Reliance on ADA Price Appreciation:
The proposal's justification for a reduced treasury cut heavily relies on the assumption of significant and sustained ADA price appreciation. While price appreciation is a desirable outcome, it is not a guaranteed factor and is influenced by a multitude of external market forces beyond the control of the Cardano community. Basing such a fundamental economic decision on speculation rather than concrete financial modeling is imprudent and introduces an unacceptable level of risk. A comprehensive financial model demonstrating treasury sustainability under various ADA price scenarios, including stagnant or declining prices, is critically lacking. Without this, we risk severely depleting the treasury during periods of market downturn, hindering our ability to fund essential development and ecosystem growth.
- Insufficient Analysis of Long-Term Treasury Health:
The proposal fails to provide a robust analysis of the long-term impact on the treasury's financial health. While it mentions the constitutional allowance for a 10% cut, simply being within the allowed range does not guarantee financial sustainability. A detailed projection of treasury reserves under different scenarios, including varying transaction volumes, development costs, and grant funding needs, is essential. Without this information, we are essentially operating in the dark, potentially compromising the long-term funding required for critical infrastructure, security audits, and ongoing development efforts.
- Potential Negative Impact on Ecosystem Development:
A reduced treasury directly translates to less funding available for grants, development initiatives, and community projects. This could significantly stifle innovation and slow down the growth of the Cardano ecosystem. While the proposal suggests a shift towards organic growth driven by transaction volume, this is a long-term aspiration and should not be relied upon as a primary funding mechanism in the short to medium term. Prematurely reducing treasury funding could have a chilling effect on developer activity and discourage new projects from building on Cardano.
- Unproven Correlation between Increased Staking Rewards and Decentralization:
While the proposal suggests that higher staking rewards will lead to improved decentralization, this is not necessarily guaranteed. Large entities with significant ADA holdings could still consolidate stake, even with higher rewards. Furthermore, the proposal lacks a concrete plan to address potential centralization risks. Simply increasing rewards is not a sufficient solution to ensure a truly decentralized network. More comprehensive strategies, such as promoting smaller stake pools and incentivizing diverse participation, are required.
- Lack of Contingency Planning:
The proposal lacks any contingency planning for scenarios where ADA price appreciation does not materialize as expected or where transaction volume remains low. In such situations, the reduced treasury could quickly become depleted, jeopardizing the long-term viability of the Cardano network. A responsible approach requires a clear plan of action for mitigating these risks, including potential mechanisms for adjusting the treasury cut in the future if necessary.
- Premature Implementation:
Implementing such a significant change before the full transition to the new constitution and the establishment of robust treasury management processes is premature. We should prioritize establishing clear governance mechanisms, financial oversight, and community consensus on treasury management before making drastic changes to the funding model.
In conclusion, while the proposal to reduce the treasury cut has some theoretical merits, it is ultimately flawed due to its over-reliance on speculative price appreciation, insufficient analysis of long-term treasury health, potential negative impact on ecosystem development, and lack of robust risk mitigation strategies. For these reasons, I cannot support this proposal and will be voting no. I urge the community to engage in a more thorough and data-driven discussion about the optimal treasury management strategy for Cardano's long-term success.
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- No2.7M ₳Rationale
Reducing Cardano's Treasury Tax from 20% to 10% might seem appealing in the short-term by slightly boosting staking rewards, but this benefit is minimal compared to the significant long-term risks. Such a cut would sharply decrease funding available for critical ecosystem growth, innovation, and infrastructure. Instead of a tax reduction, it's wiser to allocate treasury resources towards strategic priorities such as marketing to attract wider adoption, supporting high-quality dApp development, scaling initiatives, and advancing Cardano’s core blockchain technology—including important improvements planned for 2025 and beyond. Prioritizing efforts like these ensures lasting value for stakeholders, strengthens Cardano’s position, and secures sustainable growth rather than risking ecosystem stagnation for temporary gains.
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
Context
The Cardano treasury tax, defined by the "tau" (τ) parameter, dictates the percentage of staking rewards and transaction fees allocated to the treasury each epoch. Currently set at 20%, this tax has built a substantial treasury, exceeding 1.5 billion ADA as of early 2025. The treasury funds ecosystem development, including protocol upgrades and community initiatives like Project Catalyst. The proposal to reduce this rate to 10% stems from ongoing debates within the Cardano community about balancing network sustainability with staking incentives.As a Cardano Drep, it is my responsibility to uphold the values underlying the Cardano ecosystem and vote in the best interests of the community. I have outlined below several key points that can help explain my rationale.
Pros of Voting "Yes" (Reduce to 10%)
Increased Staking Rewards: Reducing the tax from 20% to 10% would redirect a larger share of epoch rewards to stake pool operators (SPOs) and delegators.
Enhanced Network Participation: Higher rewards could attract more SPOs and delegators, potentially boosting decentralization.
Improved Liquidity and ADA Appeal: With more ADA circulating among stakers rather than accumulating in the treasury, liquidity could rise. This might enhance ADA’s attractiveness to investors, potentially supporting price stability or growth.
Alignment with Maturity: Some community members argue that Cardano’s treasury, currently over 1.5 billion ADA, and the network's maturity allow for a lower tax. This aligns with a shift toward self-sustainability, relying more on transaction fees than reserves.Cons of Voting "Yes" (Reduce to 10%)
Reduced Ecosystem Funding: Halving the tax could cut monthly treasury inflows by approximately 15 million ADA (based on current estimates of 30 million ADA added monthly). This could limit funding for critical upgrades and community projects, potentially slowing Cardano’s competitiveness.
Long-Term Sustainability Risks: Some might argue that a reduced tax undermines the treasury’s ability to support Cardano’s future, especially as reserve-based rewards decline over time. With a capped supply of 45 billion ADA, transaction fees will eventually dominate treasury income, and a lower tax now might strain that transition.
Lack of Data: Posts opposing the change highlight insufficient evidence to justify halving the tax. Without clear projections on its impact on staking rates or ADA price, the move risks destabilizing the economic model, as noted by several community members.
Potential Whale Influence: A smaller treasury might shift funding power to wealthy stakeholders, reducing the democratic intent of Project Catalyst and favoring "whales" over smaller holders.Pros of Voting "No" (Maintain 20%)
Sustained Development: Keeping the tax at 20% ensures robust funding for Cardano’s future development.
Economic Stability: A larger treasury buffers against market volatility and reserve depletion, as noted in Cardano Foundation blogs. This stability could reassure investors and developers, supporting ADA’s valuation indirectly.
Community Empowerment: A well-funded treasury sustains initiatives like Project Catalyst, which has allocated over $32 million to nearly 940 projects. This fosters grassroots innovation, benefiting all holders.Cons of Voting "No" (Maintain 20%)
Lower Staking Incentives: Retaining the 20% tax keeps staking rewards lower, potentially discouraging participation.
Perceived Overfunding: With over 1.5 billion ADA already amassed, some argue the treasury is bloated, and maintaining a high tax unnecessarily hoards resources that could benefit stakers.
Competitive Disadvantage: Comparisons to Ethereum suggest Cardano’s flexible staking could gain an edge with a tax cut, making ADA more appealing versus rivals with locked staking models.
Rationale for a "Yes" Vote and Benefits for Cardano HoldersVoting "Yes" to reduce the treasury tax from 20% to 10% aligns with Cardano’s evolution into a mature, community-driven blockchain. The current treasury, exceeding 1.5 billion ADA, provides a strong foundation, amassed over years of 20% taxation. Halving the tax now acknowledges this success while shifting focus to rewarding active participants—SPOs and delegators—who secure the network. This increases staking rewards, likely boosting participation and decentralization, which are core to Cardano’s proof-of-stake model. For holders, this means higher returns on staked ADA, enhancing its utility and appeal as an investment. Additionally, redirecting ADA to circulation could improve liquidity, potentially stabilizing or lifting ADA’s price. While funding concerns exist, the treasury’s size and future transaction fee reliance suggest Cardano can sustain development with a leaner tax rate.
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- No2.7M ₳No rationale
- No2.7M ₳Rationale
I agree with this in general. I cannot however vote yes here, because it's the first year of the budget. This is an insult to the entire process, and implying bloat to a large extent.
The budget is not perfect, but we will learn a lot about future budgets from the first one. I would be much more open to a proposal of this nature after seeing how the first 6-7 months play out. I think there will be some bloat, especially with the .50c ADA price peg, but part of this process should be learning, adjusting, adapting, and progress.
I agree in principle with a lot of the context of this Governance Action but unfortunately I cannot vote Yes until I see how the first iteration of the budget works or doesn't.
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
この提案に賛成します。Cardanoの成長とADAの価格上昇を前提とすれば、トレジャリー税を20%から10%に引き下げることで、より健全な経済モデルを構築できると考えます。税率の低下によりステーキング報酬が増加し、参加者のインセンティブが高まり、分散化が進むことでネットワークのセキュリティも強化されます。また、ADA価格の上昇により、トレジャリーの財政健全性も維持できる可能性が高いです。現在の20%はShelley期に任意で設定されたものであり、エコシステムの成熟に伴い、より適切な調整が求められます。競争力のあるステーキング環境を提供し、Cardanoの発展を後押しするこの提案は、持続可能な成長戦略として理にかなっています。よって、本提案を支持します。
- No2.6M ₳No rationale
- NoChanged2.5M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- No2.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5M ₳Rationale
Tao was set to .2 in order to bootstrap the treasury. With over 1.67 BILLION accumulated, the bootstrap phase should be considered complete. We still have work to do in developing better projections for committees so we can get a good understanding of our run rate. Until there is a clear reason to have a tax rate higher than the initially researched 5%, I will be in favor of reducing tao anywhere between 5 and 20.
- No2.4M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged2.4M ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain1y agoSuperseded
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- No2.2M ₳No rationale