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.
- Yes71.3K ₳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. - Yes69.4K ₳No rationale
- No68.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes65.7K ₳No rationale
- No63.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes62.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes58.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes58.5K ₳No rationale
- No55.9K ₳No rationale
- No55.3K ₳No rationale
- No53.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes53.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes51.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes49.6K ₳Rationale
Since the Shelley Era a taxation on the Cardano community of 20% has existed through a decision made by the Founding entities, as the Technology has evolved so has the needs, requirements, and expectations of the community and with the new unlocking of the voices of the DReps and the greater Cardano Community I feel as though an easement on the burden of the community is justifiable. I agree and concur with this proposal for a parameter change. I applaud the authors of the proposal you have my vote of confidence.
-LOURDE-
Ouroborus
Imperator
Aeternalis - No46.5K ₳Rationale
First, Treasury is what makes Cardano unique versus. Other chains don't have that big pile of treasury to fund the growth of the community funded projects.
Second, timing-wise, we are at the final stage of Voltaire. We (as Cardano community as awhole) need that money to keep people working on Cardano.( Imaginge the fuel funding like Project Catalyst and now with Intersect MBO. We need that money to keep those things going.
And if we want to help people who stake their ADA, there are other ways to do that. We can change some numbers, or the Cardano Foundation or IOG/EMURGO can have more decentralization stakepools to people who run stake pools. And Cardano is already the most decentralized blockchain with 3000 pools+. We don't need to touch the treasury.
So, all in all, I'm voting no. That treasury instead needs to be used wisely.
- Yes45.2K ₳No rationale
- No43.1K ₳Rationale
As much as we love staking rewards, I am also a big believer in the Cardano treasury and funding system. Whilst an argument could potentially be made for a reduction down from 20%, to half it is quite a dramatic cut. Even though I'll keep an open mind to cuts in the future, I am not in favour of a reduction this significant at this time.
- Yes40.5K ₳No rationale
- No40.4K ₳No rationale
- No39.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes39.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes37.9K ₳No rationale
- No33.9K ₳Rationale
We are against the cut, because the proposed change is sudden and drastic. If the community deems the cuts necessary, it is preferable that they be small and gradual - if more intense changes are to be made - so that the market can appreciate the network, finding the greatest possible predictability.
Although lower treasury rates promote - as alleged - higher dividends, they also promote a greater volume of currency in circulation - which promotes depreciation of the asset. Therefore, since we do not find any technical or operational benefits, we see the proposal as purely speculative.
- No29.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes28.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes28.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes26.7K ₳Rationale
Reducing the treasury cut from 20% to 10% directly benefits Cardano’s staking ecosystem by increasing staking rewards by approximately 12.5%. This increase enhances the attractiveness of staking and actually makes staking a worthwhile economic model for small projects trying to get off the ground in Cardano. This in turn could help many projects struggling right now sustain themselves.
One of the biggest flaws with Catalyst right now is projects have to continually propose stuff to get money from them to sustain their businesses. We need an alternative to Catalyst and this proposal is a first step towards doing such a thing. The "Send to the treasury, withdraw from Catalyst lottery" does not work and is not good for long term sustainability.
I believe the proposal is constitutional and in line with the spirit of decentralization. I also will vote yes to this proposal in protest against the arbitrary requirements set forth in the Cardano Constitution.
- Yes25.7K ₳No rationale
- No24.8K ₳No rationale
- No24.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain23.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes22.2K ₳No rationale
- No15.3K ₳No rationale
- No15.2K ₳No rationale
- No14.3K ₳Rationale
Rationale for Voting No to Decrease the Taxation Parameter from 20% to 10%
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 provision of Stable Coins liquidity on Cardano, or fast-tracking development projects that are aligned with increasing 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 in the short term, the broader implications for decentralization, treasury sustainability, and governance flexibility outweigh the benefits. Therefore, I will be voting No on this proposed parameter change.
- No10.2K ₳Rationale
I believe at this stage the money is much better off in the treasury so that the money can be reinvested into the ecosystem.
- No8.9K ₳No rationale
- No8.1K ₳No rationale
- No6.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes6.6K ₳No rationale
- No4K ₳No rationale
- No3.8K ₳No rationale
- No2.5K ₳No rationale
- No2.4K ₳No rationale
- No2.1K ₳No rationale
- No1.7K ₳No rationale
- No1.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6K ₳No rationale
- No1.2K ₳Rationale
While I support Tax Cuts to the United States Federal government, I do not support tax cuts at this time for Ada transactions. 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 Midnight and a Bitcoin partnership <3
- No1K ₳No rationale