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.
- Yes272.2K ₳No rationale
- No263.3K ₳No rationale
- No258.2K ₳No rationale
- No257K ₳No rationale
- No252.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes240.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes236.8K ₳No rationale
- No217.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes216.4K ₳Rationale
After carefully reviewing the proposal, I believe halving the treasury cut from 20% to 10% strikes a prudent balance between rewarding stakers and maintaining a sustainable treasury. The treasury’s original 20% rate was largely arbitrary; as Cardano’s governance evolves, it’s appropriate to revisit that initial parameter. Increasing staking rewards from roughly 4.0% to 4.5% can further encourage network security and broader participation, especially in light of strengthened governance mechanisms that ensure more efficient use of treasury funds.
Although price appreciation is never guaranteed, Cardano’s historical growth and the network’s expanding utility suggest the ecosystem can remain well-funded at a 10% treasury rate—provided treasury oversight remains accountable and responsive to changing market conditions. Treasury sustainability ultimately hinges more on Cardano’s adoption and overall valuation than on a fixed rate, and this proposal aligns incentives to foster that growth.
By encouraging competitive grant proposals and directing projects toward real transaction-driven activity, a leaner treasury promotes a more organic development pipeline. The proposal respects the newest constitutional guidelines (which permit a treasury cut between 10% and 30%) and includes safeguards for future governance adjustments if conditions warrant.
Accordingly, I cast a “Yes” vote, advocating for a lower treasury cut that is sufficiently funded yet promotes stronger staking incentives. I will, however, remain vigilant and open to revisiting this parameter if economic circumstances change significantly.
- No202.8K ₳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.
- No202.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes201.5K ₳No rationale
- No189.8K ₳No rationale
- No185K ₳No rationale
- No182.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes182.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes175K ₳No rationale
- Abstain171.6K ₳No rationale
- No166.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes164.8K ₳No rationale
- No161K ₳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.
- Yes157.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes151.8K ₳No rationale
- No150.4K ₳Rationale
Reducing the treasury tax from 20% to 10% threatens the long-term sustainability of the Cardano ecosystem. The current tax ensures stability by funding future growth and development. Cutting it primarily benefits large stake pools while limiting the treasury’s ability to support innovation and resilience in an uncertain future.
The treasury is a key mechanism for decentralization and sustainability, fueled by transaction-based contributions that reflect active ecosystem engagement. Weakening its replenishment risks concentrating governance power in a few wallets, reducing meaningful circulation and long-term viability. - Abstain144.4K ₳No rationale
- No138.6K ₳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.
- No129.3K ₳No rationale
- No127K ₳No rationale
- No126.5K ₳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.
- Yes126.4K ₳No rationale
- No124.6K ₳No rationale
- No115.6K ₳No rationale
- No112.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes110.6K ₳No rationale
- No109.8K ₳No rationale
- No108.3K ₳No rationale
- No107.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes106K ₳No rationale
- No102.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes99.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes99K ₳No rationale
- Yes97.5K ₳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.
- No83.9K ₳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.
- No83.4K ₳No rationale
- Abstain82.1K ₳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.
- No80.1K ₳No rationale
- No77.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes74.5K ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I support and vote Yes for this proposal because:
1. Reducing the treasury tax from 20% to 10% will enhance staking incentives and participation, ensuring the stability and security of the network.
2. This adjustment does not immediately impact the treasury or the ecosystem negatively; on the contrary, it has immediate positive effects.
3. We can always reverse this decision if we determine that the treasury needs more funds by introducing a new governance proposal. This approach is highly flexible and can be executed whenever necessary, with the decision resting in the hands of the community. - Yes69.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes65.9K ₳No rationale