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.
- No441.6M ₳Rationale
I plan to vote NO to the GA of the 10% tax change. I will provide my rationale and disclosure of conflicts of interest and bias. I am accepting feedback.
Rationale 1) My pledge as a DRep and the following, which have been listed in the metadata since I registered my DRep.
"I vote to help Cardano grow into a platform that supports the economic identities of billions of people."
Currently, there is a lot of fundamental research and development that needs to be done to help Cardano grow into a platform that supports the identities of billions of people. These include, but are not limited to, scalability, Babel Fee, partner chains, Hydra, Mithril, Amaru, governance tools, and research to reduce node memory requirements.
While a 10% tax may be sufficient for these, such developments are not necessarily all predictable and may take a long time. These may become clearer as the Cardano Budget discussion progresses, but this discussion has just begun.
Therefore, at this stage, I have decided that a No vote is appropriate to defend research and development to realize the vision of Cardano.Rationale 2) It is true that the issue of staking incentives should be emphasized. However, slightly increasing staking rewards is a temporary solution, and will eventually decline quickly if transaction volume does not increase. This will also lead to faster release of ADA into the market and faster ADA inflation.
Rather, additional development support will pave the way for cost savings due to a significant reduction in memory requirements, accelerated development of alternative nodes, and the possibility of staking incentives not limited to ADA tokens through partner chains, etc.
By seriously working on scalability development, more people will be able to use the chain, and Tx fee income will increase.
Therefore, from the perspective of staking incentives, I believe that keeping the tax as it is could be advantageous in the medium to long term.Disclosure of conflict of interest/bias
If voting YES: As an SPO, I have a conflict of interest here, as there is a possibility that my income will increase by supporting this proposal.
If voting NO: As an MCC member of Intersect, I am watching the Intersect budget process. Although there is no financial benefit to me from the potential increase/decrease in the MCC Budget due to the impact of this GA, there may be some bias at work. Passage of the Cardano Budget could potentially result in me receiving DRep rewards, CC rewards, and community hub activity fees, so voting NO could potentially create a conflict of interest that would decrease the likelihood of that happening. However, I expect the likelihood and amount of funds I receive if I vote NO to be less than if I vote YES.
In this regard, I was considering voting NO, and I provided as detailed reasons as possible to show that there is no financial benefit to voting NO and that I am not too caught up in bias. Therefore, I did not think it was necessary to abstain from this vote.Note: The actual tax rate may be higher than 20% due to the return of unclaimed staking rewards to the reserve.
TAX10%変更のGAにNOと投票する予定です。根拠と利益相反・バイアスの開示を行います。フィードバックを受け付けております。
根拠1) 私のDRepとしての公約や次のようなもので、それは私のDRep登録時からメタデータに記載されています。
「Cardanoが数十億人の経済アイデンティティを支えるプラットフォームへ成長していくための投票を行います。」
現在、Cardanoが数十億人のアイデンティティを支えるプラットフォームへ成長するためには、多くの基礎研究及び開発が不足しています。スケーラビリティ、 Babel Fee、パートナーチェーン、Hydra、Mithril、Amaru、ガバナンスツール、ノードのメモリ要件削減のための研究などが挙げられますがこれに限られません。
これらは10%のTaxで十分である可能性もあるかもしれませんが、このような開発は必ずしも全て予測可能ではなく、長期にわたる可能性があります。これらはCardano Budgetの議論が進むにつれて、これらはより明確になる可能性がありますが、この議論は始まったばかりです。
よって現段階では、Cardanoのビジョンを実現するための研究開発を擁護するためにNoが妥当であると判断しました。根拠2) 確かにステーキングのインセンティブの問題は重視されるべきです。ただし、ステーキング報酬を僅かに増やすことは、一時的な解決策であり、トランザクション量が増えなければ結局のところはすぐに低下します。またこれはADAのマーケットへの放出が早まり、ADAのインフレが早まることにつながります。
むしろ、追加の開発支援により、メモリ要件の大幅な削減によるコスト削減、代替ノードの開発の加速、パートナーチェーン等によりADAトークンに限らないステーキングへのインセンティブの可能性も生まれる道が開かれます。
スケーラビリティの開発に真剣に取り組むことによってより多くの人がチェーンを利用し、Txの手数料収入が増加する可能性があります。
よってステーキングのインセンティブの観点から見ても、Taxを現状に保つことが中長期的には有利に作用する可能性があると考えています。利益相反・バイアスの開示
YESの投票の場合：私はSPOであるため、この提案を賛成することで収入が増加する可能性があり、ここには利益相反があります。
NOの投票の場合：私はIntersectのMCCメンバーとして、IntersectのBudgetプロセスを見守っています。このGAの影響によって潜在的にMCC Budgetが増加・減少することで私に金銭的なメリットはありませんが、何らかのバイアスが作用している可能性があるかもしれません。Cardano 予算が可決されると、DRep 報酬、CC 報酬、コミュニティ ハブ アクティビティ料金を受け取れる可能性があります。そのため、反対票を投じると、利益相反が生じ、その可能性が低くなる可能性があります。ただし、反対票を投じた場合に受け取る可能性と資金の額は、賛成票を投じた場合よりも少なくなると予想しています。
この点、私はNOの投票の実施を考えており、NOによって金銭的なメリットはなくバイアスに囚われすぎていないことを示すために可能な限り詳細に根拠を記載しました。よってこの投票を棄権しなくても良いと考えました。補足事項：実際の税率は未請求のステーキング報酬のリザーブ返還を加味すると、20%より高いと考えることも可能です。
- Abstain350.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes278.5M ₳Rationale
Initially my gut was saying this wasn't a good idea as we dont yet have a firm plan in place for how the treasury will be used, for what, expenses associated with it, etc. However, thinking more about it, we have a substantial treasury already and improving staking rewards would help offset expenses in a bear market and thus expand on the number of nodes being launched spreading the decentralization of Cardano overall.
The more attention we can draw to Cardano as a viable solution for passive revenue, that in and of itself would help grow the ecosystem.
Beyond that, if we play our cards right with the existing treasury, with BTCOS and IOHK's coming version in May, with Midnight and everything else coming to the ecosystem, we should start seeing dramatic use growth which will likely end up with as much or more entering the treasury over time post cut anyway. Add Hydra, etc and the growth will just continue to rise.
I also didn't want to jump right into voting for the cut because I am a node operator with the CROW node and my initial instinct was to not be self serving in my vote as this would essentially earn more ADA for me, however, its a universal decision that would help everyone ultimately. So I vote yes.
- No216.7M ₳Rationale
TLDR; Being able to tax rewards of large entities (like Binance, Coinbase, CF, IOG etc.) and putting it to work for the betterment of Cardano is more important than a small percentage gain for each individual ADA holder.
- No170.6M ₳No rationale
- No105.9M ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted96M ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- No93.3M ₳Rationale
I decided to vote NO on decreasing Treasury Tax from 20% to 10%.
My rationale:
Cardano’s Basho era, i.e., scalability, is not complete. To complete it, ADA from the treasury will be required. Additionally, Cardano needs to attract more users, which may mean additional spending on technology and marketing.
I can imagine using ADA from the treasury to mint stablecoins or liquidity. If we could agree to reduce the T parameter, then I would rather use the 10% gained in DeFi than increase staking rewards.
Increasing staking rewards by 6 ADA for every 100,000 staked ADA makes no sense if the ADA price drops by 50-80%.
If we increase staking rewards, stakers would receive an additional 150M ADA. This would represent potential selling pressure at the end of a bull market, which is a risk to the protocol's security. We need to balance incentives and security.
We cannot predict the future price of ADA and the behavior of stakers. Cardano, including the treasury, should be prepared for the worst-case scenario. Technology development is expensive. We can't tell developers to cut their living costs in half just because the price of ADA is lower than we hoped.
One of the key pillars of Cardano is long-term sustainability. I see this as the need to have enough ADA in the treasury at least until Cardano collects millions of ADA in fees.
Treasury is not large in the context of competing projects. A few Ethereum L2s and even dapps have larger treasury than Cardano. Ethereum Foundation holds $657M in stablecoins. Ethereum is the #2 project.
The current amount of ADA in the treasury seems adequate to me considering future needs.
If we want to increase staking rewards, we need to address the problem of unclaimed rewards, which make up 55% of the virtual pot. We are talking about about 10M ADA per epoch, which is returned to the reserve. This leads to the so-called double taxation.
Instead of reducing the T parameter, I suggest thinking about changing the algorithm for calculating rewards. This will require careful analysis and proposing of CIP. This is the right Cardano way.
We should not change one parameter just because we can, but carefully consider each change to other parameters, incentives, decentralization, and security.
Reduction of the T parameter will bring a relatively negligible increase in staking rewards from my point of view. Cardano has capped supply, so it cannot compete with other PoS projects that have infinite inflation. Such projects can have higher staking rewards but at the cost of lower scarcity.
I see no reason for higher rewards for SPOs and stakers in the total amount of 2.2M per epoch when many community members claim that we do not have enough ADA in the treasury to reward DReps. I see the function of DReps as similar to the function of SPOs. This aspect should be carefully considered when talking about rewards for various actors in the ecosystem.
At this point, Intersect's proposed budget calls for 263M ADA. If we were to simultaneously reduce the T parameter, we should consider halving the budget as well. We should make sure that the income in the treasury is higher than the expenses.
We should not change monetary policy as needed. Ethereum is notorious for frequent changes, which is criticized by many. Bitcoin’s monetary policy has never changed. Let’s be more like Bitcoin than Ethereum.
Unlike Bitcoin, Cardano has a treasury. Let’s take advantage of that. Instead of changing monetary policy, let’s manage income and expenses effectively.
Treasury belongs to all ADA holders. They should be interested in Cardano's long-term success, not their short-term profit. Stakers are a mix of both groups, short-term speculators and long-term supporters. The Cardano mission is long-term in nature. Let's adapt our decisions accordingly.
- NoRevoted89.4M ₳Rationale
I have cast a NO vote on the following proposal:
After analyzing the reference data, it became clear that the economic parameters are intricately interconnected and are not functioning as initially designed. Given the current situation, I believe it is best to re-simulate the parameters before making any adjustments.
If you would like to know the detailed voting reasons, please refer to this URL.
https://x.com/btbfpark/status/1900995976997072899Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes89.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain88.1M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted83.9M ₳Rationale
SIPOs Justification for Voting Yes
SIPO supports the proposal to reduce the Treasury tax from 20 percent to 10 percent as it enhances staking rewards, decentralization, and long-term sustainability within the Cardano ecosystem. Here are the key reasons behind our Yes vote:
Increased Staking Rewards and Network Participation
• Lowering the tax will increase staking rewards by approximately 12.5 percent, boosting APY from approximately 4.0 percent to approximately 4.5 percent.
• Higher rewards will encourage more ADA holders to delegate and participate in staking, strengthening network security and decentralization.Treasury Optimization and Sustainability
• The 20 percent Treasury tax was arbitrarily set during the Shelley era and has never been reassessed.
• Treasury funding is not solely dependent on tax rates but also on ADA price appreciation and transaction growth.
• A leaner Treasury allocation will drive more efficient spending and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy.Strengthening Cardanos Market Competitiveness
• Higher staking incentives make Cardano more attractive for investors and developers.
• Lowering the tax encourages a more dynamic and utility-driven economy, reducing reliance on Treasury grants.Preventing Bureaucratic Overreach and Misallocation
• Excessive Treasury allocation can lead to inefficient fund distribution and bureaucratic delays.
• A sustainable, incentive-driven model will promote self-sufficient projects rather than reliance on large Treasury subsidies.Governance Alignment and Strategic Growth
• The new Cardano Constitution allows a Treasury tax range of 10 percent to 30 percent, making this adjustment compliant with governance guidelines.
• The proposal ensures that network incentives remain balanced while maintaining financial stability.
Conclusion
A lower Treasury tax will enhance staking rewards, drive decentralization, and support long-term ecosystem sustainability without compromising Treasury health. Given that Cardanos financial sustainability depends on ADA price appreciation and transaction activity, reducing the tax is a strategic move to support network growth while maintaining economic balance.For these reasons, SIPO votes YES on this proposal.
Changes & Optimizations
1. Special Characters Removed:
• Bullet points (•) have been replaced with - (hyphens).
• Long dashes or em-dashes were removed and replaced with regular hyphens.
• No non-ASCII characters remain.
2. Readability Improved:
• Numbered sections are clearly formatted.
• Important headings and conclusions are bolded for clarity.Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
Here is the text converted to a UTF-8 encoding compatible ASCII format, ensuring that it avoids special characters and maintains readability:
SIPOs Justification for Voting Yes
SIPO supports the proposal to reduce the Treasury tax from 20 percent to 10 percent as it enhances staking rewards, decentralization, and long-term sustainability within the Cardano ecosystem. Here are the key reasons behind our Yes vote:
Increased Staking Rewards and Network Participation
• Lowering the tax will increase staking rewards by approximately 12.5 percent, boosting APY from approximately 4.0 percent to approximately 4.5 percent.
• Higher rewards will encourage more ADA holders to delegate and participate in staking, strengthening network security and decentralization.Treasury Optimization and Sustainability
• The 20 percent Treasury tax was arbitrarily set during the Shelley era and has never been reassessed.
• Treasury funding is not solely dependent on tax rates but also on ADA price appreciation and transaction growth.
• A leaner Treasury allocation will drive more efficient spending and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy.Strengthening Cardanos Market Competitiveness
• Higher staking incentives make Cardano more attractive for investors and developers.
• Lowering the tax encourages a more dynamic and utility-driven economy, reducing reliance on Treasury grants.Preventing Bureaucratic Overreach and Misallocation
• Excessive Treasury allocation can lead to inefficient fund distribution and bureaucratic delays.
• A sustainable, incentive-driven model will promote self-sufficient projects rather than reliance on large Treasury subsidies.Governance Alignment and Strategic Growth
• The new Cardano Constitution allows a Treasury tax range of 10 percent to 30 percent, making this adjustment compliant with governance guidelines.
• The proposal ensures that network incentives remain balanced while maintaining financial stability.
Conclusion
A lower Treasury tax will enhance staking rewards, drive decentralization, and support long-term ecosystem sustainability without compromising Treasury health. Given that Cardanos financial sustainability depends on ADA price appreciation and transaction activity, reducing the tax is a strategic move to support network growth while maintaining economic balance.For these reasons, SIPO votes YES on this proposal.
Changes & Optimizations
1. Special Characters Removed:
• Bullet points (•) have been replaced with - (hyphens).
• Long dashes or em-dashes were removed and replaced with regular hyphens.
• No non-ASCII characters remain.
2. Readability Improved:
• Numbered sections are clearly formatted.
• Important headings and conclusions are bolded for clarity.This format ensures compatibility with UTF-8 encoding while maintaining legibility and clarity in JSON, database storage, and other structured text applications.
- No78.6M ₳Rationale
时机考虑：
Cardano治理系统刚刚启动， 现阶段进行如此重大的参数调整风险过高， 应该让治理系统更成熟后再考虑收益与风险不成比例：
质押奖励仅增加12.5%， 而与之相比潜在风险和不确定性 （比如Ada价格下跌造成国库无法维持网络运营）太大，暂时不值得为此承担风险效果存疑：
没有确切表明提高质押奖励能促进生态参与度，比如defi活动社区反馈：
我的电报群和YouTube社区投票均显示，超过60%的社区成员选择反对或弃权
基于以上原因，投出反对票。
- No75.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes69.8M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, i have voted ✅YES on the governance action gov_action1js2...fym0d7 'Decrease Treasury Tax from 20% to 10%'. The decision to set tau to 20% from the beginning was a wise one. It helped to build up a massive Treasury from the beginning, that was the idea behind the relative high value of 20%. So, now, years later, we have a massive Treasury. This action is within the guardrails, these guardrails were set in a wise way. I am in favour to reduce Tau to 10% to also put pressure on the expenses that are planned for the next year. Remember, we can always increase it back to 20% or even more if we like. The increase in staking rewards for delegators is a nice outcome of this change, we have to keep an eye on our delegators. We are a delegated proof of stake blockchain. I wanna see more people start staking on Cardano, not delegators leaving Cardano for other blockchains that may offer higher staking rewards.
- Yes55.4M ₳No rationale
- No50.8M ₳Rationale
In my opinion, decreasing the treasury tax will not have a positive effect on the network in the long run. Increasing rewards can and should be achieved through other methods, such as growing the number of active projects on the network and, accordingly, increasing the total fees. So, I have decided to vote No
- NoRevoted43.3M ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- No42.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes41.6M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted40.2M ₳Rationale
今回の変更についてはYesとします。2024年11月以降、ADAの価格は約2.3倍から2.5倍になっています。今後2025年はADAの価値は上昇すると思われます。また年々減り続けているリワードもADAのホルダーには委任を続けるモチベーションが低下します。またこの変更をきっかけに国庫の無使いに対する厳しい目を向ける方が増える事を期待しています。
オンチェーンに関わる研究費などは良いのですがCatalystに関する諸問題が存在すると認識しているのでIntersectが巨額の予算を計上するのはどうかと思います。Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
今回の変更についてはYesとします。2024年11月以降、ADAの価格は約2.3倍から2.5倍になっています。今後2025年はADAの価値は上昇すると思われます。また年々減り続けているリワードもADAのホルダーには委任を続けるモチベーションが低下します。またこの変更をきっかけに国庫の無駄図解に対する厳しい目を向ける方が増える事を期待しています。
- No39.5M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on governance action 941502b0aa104c850d197923259444d2b57cab7af18b63143775465aaacc84f5, which lowers the treasury cut to 10%. I believe it will be harder to raise this value in the future if we need to than it is to lower it, so a more gradual approach should be taken. I am unconvinced by the justification provided in the proposal or seen throoughout the online discussions.
You can find a larger writeup justifying my vote here.
- No38.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes37M ₳No rationale
- No32.4M ₳No rationale
- No31.1M ₳No rationale
- No30.6M ₳Rationale
Socious is committed to supporting the sustainable growth of the Cardano ecosystem. The Cardano Constitution states:
“Cardano is a decentralized ecosystem of blockchain technology, smart contracts, and community governance, aiming to improve economic, political, and social systems for everyone.”
To achieve this mission, continuous investment in research and development and a stable treasury are essential. The treasury supports innovation, infrastructure, and decentralization, and reducing it could weaken Cardano’s long-term competitiveness.
This proposal relies on the uncertain assumption that ADA’s price will rise, which makes it an unstable economic model. While short-term rewards may seem attractive, long-term financial stability is key to securing Cardano’s future.
Socious is actively involved in Cardano governance and prioritizes education and community growth. To ensure a strong and sustainable ecosystem, we vote No on this proposal.
- Yes28.7M ₳Rationale
This proposal to reduce the treasury cut from 20% to 10% is an important step toward optimizing the Cardano ecosystem’s long-term growth and sustainability. By lowering the treasury cut, the proposal enhances staking incentives, encouraging greater participation and strengthening decentralization. This, in turn, will improve the security and resilience of the network, ensuring its growth while maintaining a sustainable treasury.
The original 20% treasury cut was set arbitrarily at the start of Shelley and has never been revisited. With Cardano’s ecosystem now maturing, it’s time to fine-tune economic parameters to better align with the network’s evolving needs. A 10% treasury cut will result in a 12.5% increase in staking rewards, significantly benefiting stakeholders without compromising the treasury's health.
The Cardano Treasury is already sufficiently large to support the network's needs. In the future, if the treasury requires additional funds, we can always revisit and vote to increase the treasury cut again. This flexibility ensures that we can adapt to the ecosystem’s evolving needs without compromising current incentives.
- No28.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes28.1M ₳Rationale
There have been numerous discussions about decreasing Cardano's Tau parameter, most notably the Parameter Change Proposal submitted by EarnCoinPool in October 2023. IOG researchers initially recommended setting the Tau parameter at 5%, but prior to the launch of the Shelley mainnet, it was changed to 20%. Additionally, due to the way block rewards are calculated—using total stake instead of active stake—the effective tax rate is actually 33%.
In my view, the Cardano Treasury has had sufficient time to accumulate value, and the focus should now shift to ensuring that treasury spending and transparency remain within reasonable bounds. The small increase in rewards for delegators and stake pool operators resulting from a lower Tau would, in my opinion, be a better use of funds than continuing to grow the treasury at this stage.
One reservation I have is that I would prefer the change to be incremental over time rather than a sudden 10% drop. However, I do not believe this change to Tau—abrupt as it may be—would negatively impact the Cardano ecosystem.
For these reasons, I am voting yes to lower Tau to 10%.
- No27.5M ₳No rationale
- No25.8M ₳No rationale
- No25.4M ₳No rationale
- No23.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes22.4M ₳No rationale
- No21.7M ₳Rationale
I welcome the initiative taken by those that have submitted this proposal and happy to see the first governance action submitted by the community following the Plomin hard fork.
The governance action proposes a reduction in the treasuryCut parameter from 20% to 10%. The governance action id is: 941502b0aa104c...84f5#0.
The proposal highlights a potential increase in staking rewards as part of its mathematical justification which would be a welcome impact. Cardano is first and foremost a Proof-of-Stake system which derives its security from stake participation. If a boost to staking rewards leads to an increase in participation, then it is a positive for network security. However, it should be noted that staking rewards have not been 4% for a long time. Like Bitcoin, Cardano has its own reward halvings except that the issuance rate of ADA decreases along a curve and not with sudden drops at roughly 4-year increments like Bitcoin has. As a result, the decline in block rewards over time often goes unnoticed compared to the almost ceremonial anticipation that is witnessed around Bitcoin halving events. Therefore, staking APY is more accurately nearer 2.5-3.0% than it is to 4%.
Secondly, the recent Cardano Economic Parameters Report from the Cardano Foundation highlighted the fact that once all other network variables have been taken into consideration that the actual treasury growth rate has been nearer 25-35% over the past 4 years, higher than the 20% treasuryCut parameter would suggest when considered in isolation. Therefore, a reduction in treasuryCut may not be as drastic as it first sounds. It would be interesting to see it modelled out in the context of all the other variable factors to in order to see an accurate indicator of where true treasury growth would be.
That being said, it should be noted that this parameter change was considered in isolation and could have been served better with the kind of modelling suggested previously. I think explaining to the wider community that the treasury growth isn’t solely dictated by one parameter and that it may well currently be higher than 20% may have served to ease some of the backlash against what has sometimes been perceived as a drastic reduction.
The Parameter Committee report on the proposal highlighted that the staking reward boost effect from reducing treasuryCut may benefit larger stakeholders, larger pools and exchanges more than it would benefit smaller pools and stakeholders. This potential to contribute towards a further centralisation of ADA holdings should be considered.
For example, if the goal was to boost staking rewards, another way of doing this without centralising ADA holdings would be to consider a further reduction in minPoolCost. This would allow smaller pools to boost their APY to a more competitive level more closely in-line with mid to large-sized pools. Older, larger pools benefitted from minPoolCost being a smaller percentage of block rewards, allowing them to generate a more positive looking lifetime APY. New pools in the ecosystem have to deal with a minPoolCost that is a much higher percentage of block rewards and thus encouraging stake participation for them is much more difficult with a less attractive APY. For example, a small pool reducing minPoolCost from 170 to 100 could see a 25% boost to their delegators APY according to the recently updated cardano.org/calculator. Much higher than the 12.5% proposed by this treasuryCut reduction. Larger pools would see less of a boost, thus reducing the risk of further increasing ADA concentrations that this parameter change may have.
Finally, and most notably, the proposal lacks a reversion/recovery plan as mandated by the Constitution. Although it can be argued that there is less of a security concern around this particular parameter and some common sense would say to “just change it back if need be” and let it slide this time, it raises the question of to what extent do Dreps have to also apply the Constitutionality of a proposal to their evaluations?
I am not against the principle of lowering the treasuryCut parameter and would be comfortable with seeing it pass in the future. Overall, it is a solid first effort as a community-led proposal. I just feel that it would benefit from a recovery plan, for constitutionality, and a little further evidence/modelling to help ease the concerns of the Dreps regarding the true extent of the reduction to the growth of the treasury and it would likely pass in the future. At the end of the day, a proposal has to pass both DRep and ICC/CC votes and at this stage in the voting it is falling short of both at the moment.
I vote “No” on the proposal in its current form.
- No21.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes20.3M ₳No rationale
- No20.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes18.3M ₳No rationale
- No16.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes15.3M ₳Rationale
Reducing the Treasury tax from 20% to 10% makes sense because Cardano’s growth depends on economic activity, not hoarding ADA in a treasury that already has more than enough.
Right now, the Treasury holds ₳1.67B, and even with the tax cut, it will keep growing, reaching ₳2.2B in 10 years at 10%. That’s a massive amount, and we’re not even considering the ADA that sits unused.
Imagine a town where 20% of every paycheck goes into a community fund. Over time, the fund grows so much that it has way more money than it can even spend on schools, roads, and hospitals, while businesses and workers have less capital to invest and grow.
Now, what happens if the tax drops to 10%?
- The fund still grows, just at a more efficient pace.
- People and businesses have more to work with, driving investment and economic activity.
- With more transactions and growth, the fund ends up collecting even more money over time.
That’s exactly what’s happening with Cardano. The Treasury is well-funded, and keeping the tax too high just slows down growth. The priority should be getting more people staking, boosting DeFi, and increasing network activity, not just stockpiling ADA forever.
If we leave the tax at 20%, we make staking less competitive, slow down DeFi adoption, and limit ecosystem growth. Meanwhile, other blockchains keep expanding because they make it easier for users and developers to engage.
The problem isn’t having a full Treasury. The real problem is not putting those funds to work while limiting network growth.
A 10% tax keeps the Treasury strong, but allows the rest of the ecosystem to thrive. Staking gets a boost, DeFi grows faster, and Cardano stays competitive instead of just stockpiling ADA.
Reducir el impuesto de la Tesorería del 20% al 10% tiene sentido porque el crecimiento de Cardano depende de la actividad económica, no de acumular ADA en una tesorería que ya tiene más que suficiente.
Actualmente, la Tesorería tiene ₳1.67B, y con el recorte de impuestos seguirá creciendo, alcanzando ₳2.2B en 10 años con un 10%. Es una cantidad enorme, y ni siquiera estamos considerando el ADA que queda sin utilizar.
Imagina un pueblo donde el 20% de cada salario se destina a un fondo comunitario. Con el tiempo, el fondo crece tanto que tiene más dinero del que puede gastar en escuelas, carreteras y hospitales, mientras las empresas y los trabajadores tienen menos capital para invertir y crecer.
¿Qué pasa si el impuesto baja al 10%?
- El fondo sigue creciendo, solo que de forma más eficiente.
- La gente y las empresas tienen más dinero disponible, lo que impulsa la inversión y la actividad económica.
- Con más transacciones y crecimiento, el fondo termina recaudando incluso más dinero a largo plazo.
Esto es exactamente lo que pasa con Cardano. La Tesorería está bien financiada, y mantener el impuesto alto solo ralentiza el crecimiento. La prioridad debería ser atraer más participación en staking, impulsar DeFi y aumentar la actividad en la red, no simplemente acumular ADA sin usar.
Si dejamos el impuesto en 20%, hacemos que el staking pierda competitividad frente a otras cadenas, ralentizamos la adopción de DeFi y limitamos el crecimiento del ecosistema. Mientras tanto, otras blockchains siguen creciendo porque facilitan la participación de usuarios y desarrolladores.
El problema no es tener una Tesorería llena. El problema real es no poner esos fondos a trabajar mientras limitamos el crecimiento de la red.
Un 10% mantiene la Tesorería fuerte, pero al mismo tiempo permite que el ecosistema prospere. Staking recibe un impulso, DeFi crece más rápido y Cardano sigue siendo competitivo en lugar de solo acumular ADA.
- No12.1M ₳Rationale
I think the budget should be spent on developing catalyst projects, expanding the community, promoting business and government adoption of cardano instead of increasing the stake reward.
- No12M ₳Rationale
私は本提案に対し、反対票を投じます。本提案では、トレジャリーへの割当を20%から10%へ削減することで、ステーキング報酬が増加するメリットが挙げられています。しかし、いきなり半減することで、開発資金やエコシステムの成長資金が急減する可能性があり、財政面でのリスクが適切に評価されているとは言い難いと考えております。財務の持続可能性を確保しつつ、より慎重な調整が必要であると判断し、今回は反対票を投じます。しかし、段階的な削減など、より現実的なアプローチが提案される場合には、その内容を精査し、改めて賛否を検討したいと考えております。\n\nI am voting against this proposal. This proposal highlights the benefit of increasing staking rewards by reducing the treasury allocation from 20% to 10%. However, an immediate halving of the treasury allocation raises concerns about the potential sharp decline in development funds and ecosystem growth capital, which I believe has not been adequately assessed in terms of financial risks. To ensure the financial sustainability of the treasury, I believe a more cautious adjustment is necessary. Therefore, I am casting a vote against this proposal. However, if a gradual reduction is proposed as a more realistic alternative, I will carefully review its details and reconsider my stance accordingly.
- NoRevoted11.9M ₳Rationale
Reducing the treasury cut from 20% to 10% effectively halves the rate at which funds accumulate for future development, community initiatives, and unforeseen challenges. Although the treasury’s current balance is significant; almost ₳1.7Bn, longer-term implications warrant caution. Projected annual budgets of ₳200M+ could rapidly deplete reserves, especially in volatile market conditions. While prioritizing spending is prudent, it becomes much harder to fund simultaneous, large-scale initiatives as cutting the treasury inflow by half essentially forces the ecosystem to operate under tighter budget constraints at about ₳130M+. This can create bottlenecks or lengthier development timelines if the treasury cannot sustain multiple high-impact projects. Because the financial impact is substantial, prudence dictates that decisions be made only when we have both robust evidence of the benefits and a well-defined risk mitigation strategy.
The proposal’s main benefit, an estimated increase in staking rewards from around 4% to roughly 4.5% APY, may not meaningfully boost overall staking participation. Historical data across different blockchain ecosystems suggests that moderate APY increases often have only marginal effects on delegation behavior. In particular, large holders may see the biggest benefit, while smaller stakers and network security overall may see negligible change. In a large, mature ecosystem like Cardano, it is unclear whether this slight incentive bump justifies the resulting halved treasury inflow.
Given that Cardano has only recently adopted its new governance framework with updated constitutional guardrails, we believe it is more prudent to see how well these structures manage existing priorities and funding for at least 12 months. Such a monitoring period would yield real-world data on treasury inflows, budgets, and stakeholder behavior. If the governance framework proves stable, a future treasury tax adjustment; one that includes the required reversion plan, key milestones, and review phases, could be introduced more safely. Even then, a narrower incremental reduction (for example, starting at 5%) or a staged approach would respect constitutional requirements and generate evidence on whether even a modest cut actually improves staking participation without undermining treasury sustainability.
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- No11.1M ₳No rationale
- No11M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.2M ₳No rationale
- No9.5M ₳No rationale
- Abstain8.9M ₳Rationale
RCADA acknowledges the intent behind this governance action and recognizes that reducing the treasury cut from 20% to 10% aligns with the goal of increasing staking rewards and improving incentives for delegators. The ability to fine-tune Cardano’s economic parameters through governance is a valuable mechanism that ensures the ecosystem remains adaptive and responsive to network needs. Furthermore, this proposal carries a reasonably low technical risk and can be reverted if needed, which provides confidence that any unintended consequences could be addressed through future governance actions.
That being said, I feel that a step-down approach, such as reducing the treasury cut to 15% before considering a further reduction to 10%, could have provided a more measured transition. Such an approach would have allowed for real-time observation of its effects on staking participation, treasury sustainability, etc., while still achieving the intended benefits. A phased reduction would have helped mitigate concerns regarding treasury underfunding, particularly in prolonged bear market conditions where ADA’s price might not appreciate as expected.
Additionally, while this proposal remains within the constitutional framework, there is concern that approving a governance action of this scale without sufficient empirical data and structured economic analysis sets a precedent for procedural erosion. Governance actions that significantly impact the ecosystem should be supported by more robust data, including treasury sustainability projections, staking behaviour analysis and transaction volume trends. While the rationale provided outlines theoretical justifications, the lack of a clear quantitative impact assessment introduces an element of speculation. Even if the speculation in this case turns out to be correct, I believe that establishing rigorous governance processes is crucial for maintaining long-term confidence in on-chain decision-making.
In my opinion, the responsibility of gathering supporting evidence and conducting detailed economic analysis should not fall on DReps. Governance proposals, especially those that impact Cardano’s economic parameters, should come with comprehensive data and modelling to help the community and network participants to make informed decisions.
I’m generally in favour of the proposal, but given the above-mentioned considerations, RCADA is abstaining from this vote. This decision reflects support for the broader goal of optimizing economic parameters while also emphasizing the need for structured governance processes.
RCADA encourages future governance actions to prioritize data-driven decision-making and to consider phased implementation strategies when making impactful economic adjustments.