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.
- No2.1M ₳No rationale
- No2M ₳No rationale
- No1.9M ₳No rationale
- No1.9M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on the proposal to decrease the treasury tax from 20% to 10%.
As someone who has been deeply inspired by Cardano’s vision, I want to support its sustainable growth. The Cardano Constitution states:
"Cardano is a decentralized ecosystem of blockchain technology, smart contracts, and community governance, committed to improving economic, political, and social systems for everyone, everywhere."
Fulfilling this mission requires continuous investment in research and development, along with a stable treasury. A strong treasury is the foundation that enables infrastructure improvements, decentralization efforts, and overall ecosystem growth, and reducing its inflows recklessly would jeopardize this foundation.
This proposal relies on an uncertain expectation of ADA price appreciation and lacks a solid foundation for sustainable economic planning. While higher staking rewards may seem attractive in the short term, financial stability is what truly secures Cardano’s future.
As a DRep, my mission is to expand knowledge through education and support the growth of the community. Inspired by Cardano’s vision, I am voting NO at this time to help build its future.
- No1.9M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.8M ₳No rationale
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- NoChanged1.7M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted1.6M ₳Rationale
Changes to the treasury cut should at least wait until after we have a clear understanding of Cardano’s budget needs, both short-term and long-term. Since the first budget under on-chain governance hasn’t even been passed, it’s too soon for major treasury protocol changes. The treasury is a crucial asset — not only does it fund ongoing development, it also supports innovation within the community, and therefore overall adoption of Cardano. While costs may decrease over time, and ADA’s price will (hopefully) rise, it will likely be easier to reduce the cut later rather than increase it if funding falls short. A cautious approach is needed so that the treasury remains sustainable, especially as the reserve inflow declines over time. We should also assume conservative ADA prices so that we do not have to make drastic funding cuts during bear markets. Of course, every ADA should still be spent wisely (and systems put in place to ensure accountability), but I don’t believe lowering the treasury cut to decrease reliance would make a difference here.
While lowering the treasury cut would slightly increase staking rewards, it is unlikely that this would make much of a difference to staking participation. Staking ADA is very easy, and because it remains liquid there’s really no reason not to, so a small APY increase (e.g. from 2.5% to 2.8%) is unlikely to convince a large number of additional people to start staking.
In summary, changes to the treasury tax should wait until Cardano’s budget needs are clearer, keeping in mind long-term financial sustainability of the chain.
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳Rationale
Staking rewards do not need to be higher. We need to incentivize the use of DeFi more. Also, taxes go to the common Treasury, from where we can fund development or allocate liquidity to stablecoins. All of this benefits all holders in the long run more than just increasing rewards.
- No1.5M ₳Rationale
Hard no for now. We are still in a moment where a treasury is vital to incentivize improvement, development and other apps that will increase the use and the security of the protocol. To cut the incentive by half would increase the staking rewards a 12%, but decrease the incentive by half for development.
The live development incentivized by the self-sustainable funding (treasury) it's one of the key differences between Cardano and other cryptocurrencies, making this one non-dependant on centralised entities.
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.3M ₳No rationale
- No1.3M ₳Rationale
Rationale for Voting NO on This Proposal
While I recognize the importance of optimizing Cardano's economic model and agree with the long-term need to reassess the treasury cut, I do not believe that now is the right time to implement this change. My opposition is not based on disagreement with the core idea but rather on concerns about timing, governance stability, and sustainability. Below are my key reasons for voting NO at this moment:
- Timing – Governance is in a Transition Phase
Cardano is in the process of transitioning to a more decentralized governance system, with new mechanisms being tested for the first time.
Major economic changes should be implemented only after we have at least +12 Months of governance experimentation to ensure stability and adaptability.
Making such a significant adjustment before governance mechanisms are fully operational could create unintended consequences that we may not be well-equipped to address yet.
- Support for a Structured, Long-Term Approach
I would support a gradual reduction of the treasury tax over time, rather than an immediate drop from 20% to 10%.
A phased approach (e.g., a **1-2% reduction per year) **would allow the ecosystem to monitor the effects on staking incentives, treasury sustainability, and governance funding.
Sudden reductions may destabilize treasury planning, especially since Cardano is still developing long-term funding strategies for ecosystem growth.
If the proposer still wants to move forward ASAP, then a gradual decrease or a reduction to a smaller percentage might be a more balanced approach. The proposer could break this into smaller reduction proposals throughout the year.
- Maximizing Decentralization First
Most ADA holders are still staking on exchanges, which means the network is not as decentralized as it should be.
Instead of reducing the treasury tax now, I would prioritize educating users about the benefits of delegating to Stake Pool Operators (SPOs). I know many people have been saying this for years, but now we got a budget where this could be properly address with funding and a profesional team.
Encouraging more users to delegate directly to SPOs would increase participation, decentralization, and network security before making structural changes to rewards and treasury inflows. There are other incentives outside APY to make this happen, for example DEFI products, ICOs and other events.
- Staking Rewards Increase is Marginal
While increasing staking rewards does incentivize participation, I belileve the impact of this change is limited.
A projected APY increase from 4.0% to 4.5% is unlikely to have a meaningful impact on delegator behavior.
Instead of focusing on a small percentage boost in rewards, we should look at broader incentive mechanisms to increase network engagement beyond APY adjustments.
- Treasury Stability & Future Growth
The treasury plays a critical role in funding ecosystem development, governance, and future projects.
A reduction of 50% in treasury inflows (from 20% to 10%) might be sustainable at higher ADA prices, but relying on price appreciation alone is a risky strategy. What if we go back to 0,2-0,3 range, are we willing to cut funding for the protocol that much to mantain treasury superavit?
Before making cuts, we need more data on treasury spending efficiency, funding gaps, and the impact of the upcoming governance framework.
If treasury spending is an issue, I would prioritize:
Optimizing the budget to make it as efficient as possible.
Exploring alternative treasury allocations, such as using a portion for stablecoin/DeFi liquidity to generate sustainable growth for the Ecosystem, rather than spending it directly.
- Prioritizing Stability Over Rapid Change
In a structure as large as Cardano, we should prioritize slow, steady, and well-measured changes over rapid decisions that risk breaking things.
Of course, there are exceptions where fast action is needed, but in this case, I strongly believe a cautious, multi-year plan is the best approach.
Cardano still needs significant adoption before we can safely reduce treasury inflows.
That is why I always favor gradual, long-term economic changes rather than sudden shifts.
- Reassessing This Discussion in 12 Months
I support the idea of reducing the treasury cut, but I believe we should reassess this proposal in 12 months once governance mechanisms have been tested.
A measured, strategic decrease over time (rather than a drastic cut) would allow for better planning and risk management.
I would be open to voting YES on a revised proposal that includes a structured, long-term tax reduction plan rather than an immediate drop.
Conclusion
I agree that increasing staking rewards can enhance participation, but this proposal moves too fast without enough governance experience to guide it. The treasury remains an essential tool for funding Cardano’s growth, and we need a more cautious, data-driven approach before making major changes. I know the proposers are experienced and professional, and I deeply appreciate they are bringing this discussion to the table.
I am writing this rationale without looking at how others are voting, to avoid being influenced by external opinions.
For now, I am voting NO—not because I disagree with the concept, but because I believe the timing is premature and a structured, phased approach would be a far better path forward.
DREP ID: drep1y2jd3c4hg...2e9zm6
Vote0004
- No1.3M ₳Rationale
I appreciate this opportunity to consent to the current tax rate of 20%.
My reasons for opposing lowering tax rate from 20% to 10% are as follows:
Lowering the treasury cut parameter does not decrease transaction fees, rather it simply means more of the transaction fees go to SPOs and their stakers. This is significant for 2 reasons.
1.1) Lowering the treasury cut increases the ADA in circulation, potentially producing an inflationary effect on ADA, adding to the selling pressure that will arise from the increased outflows from the treasury due to the budget. It may someday be prudent to direct more funds to SPOs/stakers if rewards grow so low that SPOs stop operating, for at the moment I see no evidence that is the case.
1.2) Secondly, since transactions fees will not be lowered, as some might mistakenly assume, there will be no "grease the wheel" effect increasing on-chain activity due to lower fees.It is far more difficult to raise taxes than it is to lower them, and as there has been no prolonged outcry from the community protesting the 20% rate I see no compelling reason to lower it.
It remains to be seen how quickly the treasury will be depleted by the yearly budget expenditures, and until we can be confident the long term trajectory of the treasury is healthy, I think it's unwise to cut treasury inflows by 50% at this early stage.
Increasing passive staking rewards further disincentivizes community members to put their ADA to work providing liquidity in DEXs and otherwise contributing to Cardano's TVL and liquidity depth. In more traditional financial terms, lowering the treasury cut has a similar effect as raising interest rates at a central bank. It increases risk-free rate of return, and as a consequence makes all other investments less attractive. I believe this runs contrary to Cardano's strategic needs and interests at the moment.
I agree with the premise of this proposal. The community should consent to the tax rate, but I feel lowering the tax rate now would be a mistake.
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
Exercise Your Right to Vote:
The proposal for changing the taxation parameter from 20% to 10% is an important governance issue that directly impacts the ecosystem. Voting on this matter is not only a responsibility but also an opportunity to exercise our right to influence the taxation structure in Cardano.
Impact on Pool Decentralization:
My primary concern with reducing the taxation to 10% is that it disproportionately benefits multiple pools over single pools. The larger multiple pools would receive a larger share of the returns, which undermines the goal of decentralization. A reduction in the tax rate would make it easier for multi-pool SPOs (Stake Pool Operators) to further consolidate staking power and rewards, rather than encouraging the distribution of rewards among a wider variety of smaller pools. I believe we should prioritize the strengthening of decentralization by supporting the smaller pools, and only vary the taxation parameter in conjunction with other stake pool decentralization parameters.
Constitutional Constraints:
If the parameter change is accepted, the governance system will prevent any further changes to the taxation parameter for another 6 months. This significant period of inaction could leave us with a tax rate that doesn't align with the dynamic needs of the ecosystem at this time. Such a long period without the possibility of revision could be detrimental if unforeseen issues arise in the future.
Governance Bootstrap Period and Treasury Concerns:
As we are still in the governance bootstrap period, with a complex roadmap ahead, it is crucial that we maintain a healthy treasury. A reduction in the taxation rate could significantly impact the resources available for future development, especially as we work towards implementing a wide range of improvements and innovations. A stable and sufficiently funded treasury is essential to fund critical initiatives and ensure the long-term success of the network.
Strategic Use of the 10% Tax:
Rather than reducing the tax rate, I propose we keep the taxation for a strategic move. The tax can be used for future, more targeted initiatives, such as incentivizing the decentralization of the SPO network to smaller pools, or provide stable coin liquidity on Cardano, or fast-tracking development projects that are aligned with increased scalability. Using the extra tax for these initiatives could provide greater long-term value than simply reducing the tax rate.
Conclusion:
While the proposal to reduce the taxation parameter from 20% to 10% benefits stake-holders, the broader implications for decentralization amd treasury flexibility outweigh the benefits. Therefore, I will be voting No on this proposed parameter change.
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
Rationale for Voting NO on Decreasing Treasury Tax from 20% to 10%
Treasury Stability and Long-Term Financial Sustainability
Reducing the treasury tax from 20% to 10% would significantly cut the treasury's revenue, impacting its ability to fund critical initiatives within the Cardano ecosystem. As Cardano is still in its Basho (scalability) phase, substantial investments in technology and ecosystem expansion are necessary, making treasury funding a crucial component for long-term growth.
The treasury supports development, marketing, and governance → Cutting its revenue could hinder these essential activities.
No comprehensive impact assessment → Assuming ADA’s price will rise to compensate for treasury losses is risky and uncertain.
Protecting the treasury’s financial sustainability is not just important for the present but also serves as a foundation for Cardano’s long-term success.Small Increase in Staking Rewards is Not Worth the Trade-off
The benefit of increasing staking rewards is minimal compared to the long-term risks:
Reducing the treasury tax from 20% to 10% would result in only 6 additional ADA per 100,000 ADA staked.
If ADA’s price drops by 50-80%, the impact of this increase becomes negligible.
Market cycle risks → Increasing staking rewards could lead to 150M ADA in additional sell pressure, posing a security risk at market peaks.
Other ways to enhance staking incentives without weakening the treasury should be explored, such as addressing unclaimed rewards, which amount to 10M ADA per epoch.Lack of a Clear Reversion Plan
This proposal does not include a well-defined recovery plan, relying instead on the assumption that the tax rate can simply be reverted from 10% back to 20% if needed.
If the treasury depletes faster than expected, reversing the change could be politically and technically challenging.
The absence of a structured fallback mechanism sets a concerning precedent for future economic parameter adjustments.
Any major financial change should be accompanied by a clear contingency plan in case of adverse effects.Treasury Size Compared to Competitors
Cardano’s treasury is relatively small compared to other blockchain ecosystems:
Ethereum Foundation holds $657M in stablecoins, whereas Cardano primarily holds ADA.
Some Ethereum Layer 2 projects and even dApps have larger treasuries than Cardano.
Ensuring the treasury remains well-funded is essential for Cardano to remain competitive and continue attracting developers, businesses, and users.Monetary Policy Should Be Stable and Predictable
Frequent changes to financial policies can undermine confidence in Cardano’s economic model:
Bitcoin has never changed its monetary policy.
Ethereum has faced criticism for frequent economic adjustments.
Cardano should prioritize stability rather than adjusting financial parameters based on short-term incentives.
Changing the treasury tax arbitrarily can create future pressure to adjust economic policies repeatedly, leading to potential instability.Trade-off Between Treasury Cut and Staking Incentives Needs Better Consideration
If the goal is to increase staking rewards, modifying the T (Treasury Cut) parameter may not be the most effective approach:
Cardano has a capped supply, unlike other PoS blockchains with infinite inflation.
A more holistic approach is needed to balance staking rewards, decentralization, and treasury sustainability.
Adjusting the reward distribution mechanism could be a better alternative than reducing treasury income.
A Cardano Improvement Proposal (CIP) focused on refining staking reward allocation would be a more appropriate strategy.
Conclusion: Vote NO for Treasury Stability and Cardano’s Long-Term Success
Reducing the treasury tax to 10% represents a major financial shift that offers minimal short-term benefits but poses significant long-term risks:
✅ Weakens treasury funding, potentially hindering Cardano’s long-term development.
✅ Lacks a clear recovery plan, setting a poor precedent for future economic adjustments.
✅ Increases staking rewards insignificantly, without addressing core incentive issues.
✅ Cardano’s treasury is smaller than competitors, and reducing revenue could impact its competitiveness.
✅ Financial policies should remain stable, avoiding unnecessary changes for short-term gains.For these reasons, I Vote NO to protect the treasury’s sustainability and ensure the long-term success of the Cardano ecosystem.
Vietnamese Version
Lý do bỏ phiếu KHÔNG đối với đề xuất giảm thuế kho bạc từ 20% xuống 10%
Ổn định kho bạc và đảm bảo tính bền vững tài chính dài hạn
Việc giảm thuế kho bạc từ 20% xuống 10% sẽ làm giảm đáng kể nguồn thu của kho bạc, ảnh hưởng đến khả năng tài trợ cho các sáng kiến quan trọng trong hệ sinh thái Cardano. Khi Cardano vẫn đang trong giai đoạn Basho (mở rộng quy mô) và cần đầu tư mạnh vào công nghệ, nguồn tài trợ từ kho bạc là yếu tố then chốt để đảm bảo sự phát triển dài hạn.
Kho bạc hỗ trợ phát triển công nghệ, marketing và quản trị → Nếu nguồn thu bị cắt giảm, các hoạt động quan trọng này có thể bị ảnh hưởng.
Chưa có đánh giá toàn diện về tác động tài chính → Việc giả định rằng giá ADA sẽ tăng để bù đắp sự thiếu hụt trong kho bạc là một rủi ro không đảm bảo chắc chắn.
Bảo vệ sự bền vững tài chính của kho bạc không chỉ quan trọng trong giai đoạn hiện tại mà còn là nền tảng cho sự phát triển lâu dài của Cardano.Mức tăng phần thưởng staking quá nhỏ để đánh đổi với rủi ro dài hạn
Lợi ích của việc tăng phần thưởng staking không đáng kể nếu so sánh với những rủi ro tiềm ẩn:
Giảm thuế kho bạc từ 20% xuống 10% chỉ giúp tăng 6 ADA trên mỗi 100,000 ADA được staking.
Nếu giá ADA giảm 50-80%, mức tăng này gần như không có ý nghĩa thực tế.
Rủi ro từ chu kỳ thị trường → Việc tăng phần thưởng staking có thể dẫn đến 150 triệu ADA bị bán ra, gây ảnh hưởng tiêu cực đến sự ổn định của mạng lưới.
Trong khi đó, có những giải pháp khác để cải thiện phần thưởng staking mà không làm suy yếu kho bạc, chẳng hạn như giải quyết vấn đề 55% phần thưởng chưa được nhận (unclaimed rewards), tương đương 10 triệu ADA mỗi epoch.Thiếu kế hoạch phục hồi rõ ràng
Đề xuất này không có kế hoạch phục hồi rõ ràng, mà chỉ dựa vào giả định rằng có thể dễ dàng điều chỉnh lại thuế từ 10% lên 20% nếu cần thiết.
Nếu kho bạc cạn kiệt nhanh hơn dự kiến, thì việc tăng lại thuế có thể gặp khó khăn về mặt chính trị và kỹ thuật.
Việc thiếu kế hoạch điều chỉnh có thể tạo ra tiền lệ xấu cho các thay đổi tài chính trong tương lai.
Bất kỳ thay đổi lớn nào về tài chính cũng cần đi kèm với kế hoạch dự phòng rõ ràng trong trường hợp xuất hiện tác động tiêu cực.Quy mô kho bạc so với các đối thủ cạnh tranh
Kho bạc của Cardano vẫn còn khá nhỏ nếu so sánh với các hệ sinh thái blockchain khác:
Ethereum Foundation đang nắm giữ 657 triệu USD stablecoins, trong khi Cardano chủ yếu dựa vào ADA.
Một số dự án Layer 2 của Ethereum và thậm chí cả một số dApps có ngân sách lớn hơn kho bạc Cardano.
Đảm bảo rằng kho bạc có đủ nguồn tài chính là điều cần thiết để Cardano có thể cạnh tranh và tiếp tục thu hút các nhà phát triển, doanh nghiệp và người dùng.Chính sách tài chính cần ổn định và có tính dự đoán
Việc thay đổi chính sách tài chính một cách thường xuyên có thể làm suy giảm niềm tin vào mô hình kinh tế của Cardano:
Bitcoin chưa bao giờ thay đổi chính sách tài chính của nó.
Ethereum đã bị chỉ trích vì thay đổi chính sách kinh tế quá thường xuyên.
Cardano nên ưu tiên sự ổn định, thay vì điều chỉnh các tham số tài chính dựa trên lợi ích ngắn hạn.
Việc thay đổi thuế kho bạc mà không có kế hoạch tối ưu hóa ngân sách có thể tạo ra áp lực điều chỉnh liên tục trong tương lai, gây bất ổn cho hệ sinh thái.Cần xem xét kỹ hơn sự đánh đổi giữa cắt giảm thuế kho bạc và tăng phần thưởng staking
Nếu mục tiêu của đề xuất này là tăng phần thưởng staking, thì việc thay đổi tham số T (Treasury Cut) có thể không phải là cách tiếp cận tối ưu:
Cardano có nguồn cung giới hạn, không giống như các blockchain PoS khác có lạm phát vô hạn.
Cần có một cách tiếp cận toàn diện hơn để cân bằng phần thưởng staking, phân quyền và sự bền vững của kho bạc.
Cơ chế tính toán phần thưởng staking có thể cần được tối ưu lại thay vì cắt giảm nguồn thu của kho bạc.
Một đề xuất cải tiến Cardano (Cardano Improvement Proposal - CIP) nhằm tối ưu hóa cách phân bổ phần thưởng staking có thể là một phương án hợp lý hơn.
Kết luận: Bỏ phiếu KHÔNG để bảo vệ kho bạc và sự phát triển dài hạn của Cardano
Việc giảm thuế kho bạc xuống 10% là một thay đổi tài chính lớn, mang lại lợi ích nhỏ trong ngắn hạn nhưng tiềm ẩn rủi ro dài hạn đáng kể:
✅ Gây áp lực lên ngân sách kho bạc, có thể ảnh hưởng đến sự phát triển dài hạn của Cardano.
✅ Thiếu kế hoạch phục hồi rõ ràng, tạo tiền lệ không tốt cho các thay đổi tài chính trong tương lai.
✅ Tăng phần thưởng staking không đáng kể, không giải quyết được vấn đề cốt lõi của hệ thống phần thưởng.
✅ Kho bạc của Cardano nhỏ hơn so với các đối thủ cạnh tranh, việc cắt giảm nguồn thu có thể ảnh hưởng đến khả năng duy trì và mở rộng hệ sinh thái.
✅ Chính sách tài chính cần ổn định, không nên thay đổi chỉ vì lợi ích ngắn hạn.
Vì những lý do trên, tôi bỏ phiếu KHÔNG để bảo vệ sự bền vững của kho bạc và đảm bảo sự phát triển dài hạn của hệ sinh thái Cardano.
Japanese Version
トレジャリー税率を20%から10%に引き下げる提案に反対する理由
トレジャリーの安定性と長期的な経済的持続可能性
トレジャリー税率を20%から10%に引き下げると、トレジャリーの収益が大幅に減少し、カルダノのエコシステムにおける重要なプロジェクトへの資金提供能力が低下します。カルダノは現在Basho（スケーラビリティ）フェーズにあり、技術開発やエコシステムの拡大に大規模な投資が必要です。そのため、トレジャリーの安定した資金調達は、長期的な成長に不可欠です。
トレジャリーは技術開発、マーケティング、ガバナンスを支援 → 収入が減少すると、これらの重要な活動が影響を受ける可能性がある。
トレジャリーへの影響に関する包括的な評価が行われていない → ADA価格の上昇によってトレジャリーの減収を補えるという前提は、不確実でリスクが高い。
トレジャリーの安定性を確保することは、現在だけでなく、カルダノの長期的な成功の基盤を築く上で不可欠です。ステーキング報酬の増加は、リスクに見合わない
ステーキング報酬の増加によるメリットは、長期的なリスクと比較するとごくわずかです。
トレジャリー税率を**20%から10%に引き下げても、100,000 ADAステーキングごとにわずか6 ADAの増加に過ぎない。
ADA価格が50～80%下落した場合、この増加分の価値はほぼ無意味になる。
市場サイクルのリスク → ステーキング報酬が増えることで、市場がピークに達した際に1.5億ADAが売却圧力となり、ネットワークの安全性が損なわれる可能性がある。
トレジャリーを弱体化させることなく、ステーキング報酬を向上させる方法として、例えば未請求報酬（unclaimed rewards）の問題に対処すること（1エポックあたり約1,000万ADA）**が考えられます。明確な復元計画の欠如
この提案には明確な復元計画が含まれておらず、単にトレジャリー税率を10%から20%に戻せばよいという前提に基づいています。
もしトレジャリーが予想以上に早く枯渇した場合、税率を元に戻すことが政治的・技術的に困難になる可能性がある。
明確なバックアッププランがないままトレジャリーの変更を行うことは、今後の経済パラメータ変更に対する悪い前例を作る。
トレジャリーの主要な変更には、リスクが発生した場合の明確な対処計画が必要です。競合プロジェクトとのトレジャリー規模の比較
カルダノのトレジャリーは、他のブロックチェーンエコシステムと比較すると規模が小さいです。
Ethereum財団は6億5700万ドルのステーブルコインを保有しているのに対し、カルダノのトレジャリーは主にADAに依存している。
EthereumのLayer 2プロジェクトや、一部のdAppsでさえ、カルダノのトレジャリーよりも大きな資金を持っている。
カルダノが競争力を維持し、開発者、企業、ユーザーを引き付け続けるためには、トレジャリーの安定した資金調達が不可欠です。財政政策の安定性と予測可能性が重要
頻繁な財務パラメータの変更は、カルダノの経済モデルへの信頼を損なう可能性があります。
ビットコインはこれまで一度も金融政策を変更していない。
イーサリアムは頻繁な経済調整で批判を受けている。
カルダノは、短期的なメリットのために金融パラメータを変更するのではなく、安定性を優先するべき。
トレジャリー税率の変更が前例となると、今後もトレジャリー政策の調整圧力が続く可能性があり、エコシステムの安定性を損なうリスクがあります。トレジャリー税率の引き下げとステーキングインセンティブのトレードオフをより慎重に検討すべき
この提案の目的がステーキング報酬の増加であるならば、*T (Treasury Cut)*パラメータの変更が最適な方法とは限りません。
カルダノは供給量が上限に達する仕様であり、無制限にインフレするPoSブロックチェーンとは異なる。
ステーキング報酬、分散化、トレジャリーの持続可能性をバランスよく考慮する必要がある。
トレジャリー収益を減らすのではなく、報酬分配の仕組みを最適化するほうが適切。
この問題に対しては、ステーキング報酬の配分を改善する**カルダノ改善提案（CIP: Cardano Improvement Proposal）**を検討するほうが適切なアプローチです。
結論：トレジャリーの安定性とカルダノの長期的な成功を守るため、反対票を投じる
トレジャリー税率を10%に引き下げることは、短期的な利益は小さいが、長期的なリスクが大きい財務の変更です。
✅ トレジャリー収入の減少により、カルダノの長期的な成長が妨げられる可能性がある。
✅ 復元計画が不明確であり、将来の経済パラメータ変更に悪影響を与える可能性がある。
✅ ステーキング報酬の増加はごくわずかであり、インセンティブの本質的な問題を解決しない。
✅ カルダノのトレジャリー規模は競合プロジェクトと比べて小さく、収入の減少は競争力に影響を与える可能性がある。
✅ 財政政策の安定性を維持することが重要であり、短期的なメリットのために不必要な変更を加えるべきではない。これらの理由から、私は反対票（NO）を投じることで、トレジャリーの持続可能性を守り、カルダノエコシステムの長期的な発展を支えます。
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
While I support Tax Cuts to the United States Federal government, I do not support tax cuts at this time for Ada transactions. Firstly, Ada does not have bureaucrats laundering transaction money to themselves. We have very little corruption, because of the automated nature of this software. There is one formula which sends a portion of every transaction fee to the treasury. The treasury is controlled by We The Holders. The treasury will fund updates to this software forever. At this early juncture, We must ensure that the treasury grows at the current rate. Ada is still very cheap in comparison to the prices of peak bull run, and into the long term future. I can see tax cuts then, but not now. Your point of \"At higher ADA prices, the treasury retains substantial purchasing power even with a reduced cut\", inherently confirms that this cut slashes the purchasing power of the treasury in half, at a time when Ada is just barely over 20 Billion $ market cap. We should keep the tax where its at, which is still low and fair for all, so that the treasury grows twice as fast as it would if we slash it in half. Then if we achieve a 10x in market cap, the treasury will be substantially larger. At that time we can consider tax cuts. PS. Looking forward to a Midnight and Bitcoin partnership <3 PSS- Thank you for delegating to me!
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
While I'm supportive of the idea of making staking more profitable, I think it is too early to reduce the treasure tax. I think if the proposal had been to reduce to 15% instead of 20% I may have been supportive. For now I think it is more important to have a well-funded treasury.
- No1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1M ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted969.9K ₳Rationale
This is a an amazing conversation starter. But at this moment in time, the conditions that was a catalyst to set the tau to the current .2 are still true... we still need to bootstrap the treasury.
I would love to revisit tau after a couple budgets have been passed and the Cardano community have found it's stride in living up to the original promise of sustainability.
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- No966.3K ₳No rationale
- No951.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes943.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes933.3K ₳No rationale
- No929.9K ₳No rationale
- No927.7K ₳No rationale
- No920.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes888K ₳No rationale
- No884.5K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged870.3K ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- No866.3K ₳No rationale
- No829.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes796.1K ₳No rationale
- No792.3K ₳No rationale