Decrease Treasury Tax from 20% to 10%
313 DReps voted · 69 with a rationale · 17 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes294.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes271.8K ₳No rationale
- No270.1K ₳Rationale
At present, I see no justification to adjust any network parameters.
Until such time that Cardano realizes it initial vision with all network and support structures being completed or there are unforseen, extenuating circumstances introduced that threaten Cardano's existance, I will vote no to any and all parameter changes.
My development approach remains the same - First make it work, then make it pretty, then make it popular, then make changes.
- No262.6K ₳No rationale
- No261.6K ₳No rationale
- No257.1K ₳No rationale
- No252.9K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted245.5K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes238.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes237K ₳No rationale
- Yes233.2K ₳No rationale
- No228.3K ₳No rationale
- No202.3K ₳No rationale
- No200.5K ₳Rationale
I voted NO.
I cannot vote for reducing the treasury replenishment rate when the likely consequence is that it will be used as am excuse to further restrict the rate at which we invest in our future development and growth.
What I mean is this: With so much of the governance discussion centred in X, there has evolved a kind of extreme financial conservatism. The reason for this, I believe, is that influencers and dReps with followers online try to increase their perceived responsibility by advocating for an extremely restricted attitude towards spending money from the treasury. They claim to be the ones protecting the treasury and, by extension, the ecosystem. One result of this, is that the net change limit (the amount that can be withdrawn in one year) is now set to just under the amount we expect the treasury to be replenished over the year by transaction taxes. Therefore all the amount above this limit is just sitting there, not helping the ecosystem in any way. It doesn’t matter that the treasury is 1.5 Billion dollars, anything above the 350 Million net change limit is doing the same thing, nothing. When these same influencers criticise the budget (which was released this week) they do so arguing that we have to protect what we have. They rarely, if ever, consider the other side of that coin, which is, of course, that they are restricting the amount that we invest for future development and growth.
It is simply nonsensical that the same people who have argued so passionately against Intersects investment budget in order to protect our treasury, now argue that we should cut by half the rate at which that treasury is replenished!
In this climate, where will the discussion be in future years, if we don’t get the much hoped for Ada price increase, when the budget to invest and develop our ecosystem is higher than our treasury replenishment rate?
I think those same voices will continue to portray themselves as financially responsible by arguing for a reduction in the Intersect budget because of the lower replenishment rate. My view is that now is the time to invest for the future. So I cannot vote for reducing the treasury replenishment rate when the likely consequence is that is will be used to further restrict the rate at which we invest in our future development and growth.If our community had a sensible and consistent attitude towards the treasury I would have voted YES.
- Yes199K ₳No rationale
- Abstain193.9K ₳No rationale
- No191.1K ₳No rationale
- No185.6K ₳Rationale
As Andrew stated in his video, this allows us to ratify a tax amount, either way, for the first time. Thanks Andrew for bringing this vote up.
After reviewing the parameters committee determination that this proposal does not have economic impact reviews, I have decided to vote against this proposal. I would consider an additional vote on this topic with stronger review period.
- No182.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes182.1K ₳No rationale
- No178.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes174.5K ₳No rationale
- No166.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes164.4K ₳No rationale
- Abstain160.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes152.7K ₳No rationale
- No147.5K ₳No rationale
- No138.4K ₳Rationale
While lower fees may appear beneficial to users in the short term, the long-term sustainability of the Cardano ecosystem relies on a balanced fee structure that funds development, incentivizes DReps and SPOs, and strengthens network security. Voting "No" helps ensure Cardano remains self-sufficient and resilient.
- Yes137.4K ₳No rationale
- No136.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes135.1K ₳Rationale
Taking into consideration that the Treasury tax has been unchanged for years, i believe going from 20% to %10 is a good starting point. I believe as governance actions become more frequent the treasury tax will change will be less drastic. As we understand how much money we spend and how much we want to spend becomes apparent not just through theory but through on-chain history, i believe the future will likely consist of changing the tax by a couple of percent. With all things considered i believe the change from 20% to 10% is reasonable until future events reveal that an adjustment is needed.
- No134.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes129.1K ₳No rationale
- No128.9K ₳No rationale
- No126.2K ₳Rationale
From 0.2 to 0.1 is too much of a change. First see how the treasury can be maintained. Also more staking rewards might lead to less participation in smart contracts, like liquidity providing.
- No115.6K ₳No rationale
- No112.1K ₳No rationale
- No110.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes110.5K ₳No rationale
- No109.5K ₳No rationale
- No108.3K ₳Rationale
My vote against this proposal stems from the belief that it is premature. While I agree that there's a clear need to enhance reward conditions for SPOs and increase delegation rewards, the current lack of clarity around the treasury's future investment strategy and fund allocation prevents a well-informed decision on halving treasury deposits. Before proceeding, I would at least want to observe initial budget approvals, which ideally would include discussions on treasury investment strategies. Once we have a better grasp of the treasury's long-term sustainability, revisiting this proposal will be a priority for me, as it touches on a fundamental aspect of decentralization. I also want to reassure anyone reading this that I will keep this proposal in mind when evaluating upcoming budget proposals since keeping the government lean by cutting and redistributing taxes is generally something I support. Despite my 'no' vote, I appreciate the proposers for highlighting this crucial matter.
- No108.1K ₳No rationale
- No107.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes105.8K ₳No rationale
- No103.1K ₳No rationale
- Abstain101.5K ₳Rationale
While I recognize the need to incentivize broader adoption, the treasury plays a critical role in funding transformative projects that keep Cardano competitive and capable of adapting to ever-evolving technological demands and innovations.
However, this proposal hinges on the assumption that ADA’s value will increase in the future, rather than relying on its current value, which introduces a significant level of risk. Moreover, the proposal does not mention any treasury control or oversight mechanisms, raising concerns about long-term sustainability and financial stability.
For these reasons, I find it prudent to abstain until more concrete safeguards and plans are provided to address the risks associated with reducing the treasury cut.
- Yes99.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes94.9K ₳No rationale
- No92.6K ₳No rationale
- No79.9K ₳No rationale