Net Change Limit: Cardano Treasury (Epochs 613-713)
172 DReps voted · 72 with a rationale · 12 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes14.9M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on two governance actions, one with the hash a75645e0871f3dbb6207df867d9bd6a1a3a5befa40d68df6da651db4d6607fbf#0 and one with the hash 529dccaadaa000746c22f1682574cb3f436eeba4d19710b90791a54226dc96d7#0.
First, there is some unavoidable conflict of interest inherent in the AlphaGrowth proposal: every DeFi protocol (and IMO, the whole ecosystem) stands to benefit from more capital being deployed into DeFi on Cardano. That being said, the funds allocated in the proposal to an independent eligibility audit to avoid favoritism are, to me, sufficient protections against my own conflict of interest.
In response, I am voting yes on both the increased NCL, and the use of that increase in support of the AlphaGrowth proposal.
In orbital dynamics, there is a concept called delta-V. This represents the change in velocity available to you by your current fuel reserves. Spend a certain amount of fuel, change your velocity by a set amount, and this determines how you change the shape of your orbit.
If, however, you're in a decaying orbit, this Delta-V becomes time sensitive. As the orbit decays from drag from the atmosphere, the Delta-V required to correct and sustain the orbit long term increases. Conserving fuel and expending it slowly over time to try to maintain your current orbit is a losing game, because you have finite resources. The longer you wait, the more your orbit decays, and the more Delta-V is required to repair your orbit at all, until you hit a point of no return and your crash to earth is inevitable.
I believe this is the position Cardano finds itself in. It has a fairly large reserve of ADA. Through unbelievable feats of human engineering it finds itself in a low, somewhat stable orbit. But it is decaying slowly over time.
In my view, conserving that budget to spend it judiciously over a long period of time while the value of that treasury shrinks is consigning Cardano to a painful crash into the Atlantic ocean. Perhaps conserving that treasury will delay that crash by a few years, or allow us some leniency to steer that crash into safer, gentler waters, but nonetheless, we will crash.
The solution, then, is to figure out how to stabilize the orbit. The Delta-V available in a stable orbit becomes a moot point. If we are stable, and self sustaining, we will have time to secure a resupply, and from that stable orbit our launch into the stars becomes far easier.
More concretely, the Cardano treasury will not replenish or grow its expenditures through transaction fees alone. It will grow it's holdings by fostering billion dollar businesses that have no choice but to invest in the continued success of Cardano.
I believe the AlphaGrowth proposal is our best use of what fuel we have to change the trajectory of Cardano for the better. They have a proven track record, a concrete plan, and the right mindset to attract those businesses.
You can find a larger writeup justifying my vote here.
- Yes14.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes13.3M ₳Rationale
RCADA votes YES on Net Change Limit: Cardano Treasury (Epochs 613–713).
This is a cautious YES.
RCADA recognises that this is an Info Action, not a Treasury Withdrawal. It does not directly authorize any spending from the Cardano Treasury. Instead, it records DRep agreement to set a new Net Change Limit of 500,000,000 ADA for the period beginning at the start of Epoch 613 and ending at the close of Epoch 713.
RCADA supports the principle that the Cardano Treasury should be governed with discipline, restraint, and long-term sustainability in mind. The Net Change Limit is an important fiscal guardrail because it places a fixed cap on how much ADA can leave the Treasury through enacted Treasury Withdrawals during the defined period. Raising that limit should not be treated as routine, and RCADA does not view this proposal as a simple housekeeping action.
RCADA has previously been cautious about Treasury spending that exceeds estimated Treasury inflows. That caution remains. A Treasury that is drawn down faster than it replenishes cannot support the ecosystem indefinitely. The Cardano Treasury should not become a general-purpose spending pool, and DReps should not approve withdrawals simply because headroom exists under the limit.
At the same time, RCADA recognises that the proposed 500 million ADA limit is not an automatic spending plan. It is a ceiling. Each Treasury Withdrawal would still need to be assessed and approved separately. RCADA’s YES vote should therefore not be interpreted as support for spending the full amount, nor as approval of any particular future Treasury Withdrawal.
RCADA also notes that while 500 million ADA is higher than the previously agreed 350 million ADA limit, the relevant comparison is not only the headline increase of 150 million ADA. The period runs for roughly 1.38 years, and when compared against estimated Treasury replenishment over that period, the proposed limit appears to be moderately above expected inflows rather than an extreme expansion. This still matters, because full use of the limit would likely reduce the Treasury balance. However, RCADA does not view the proposed level as excessive if it is used carefully and only for high-quality proposals.
RCADA also believes there is a reasonable argument that weaker market conditions can be an important time to build. Cardano should not stop investing in critical infrastructure, developer tooling, security, governance capability, decentralisation, resilience, and adoption simply because the market is down. In some cases, carefully selected public-good investment during quieter market periods may strengthen the ecosystem for the next growth cycle.
However, this argument only works if spending remains selective. A higher Net Change Limit must not become an excuse for loose funding standards, weak accountability, duplicated work, poor value-for-money, or repeated funding of familiar recipients without clear ecosystem benefit. Any Treasury Withdrawal that relies on this expanded headroom should face strong scrutiny.
RCADA is also concerned that the ecosystem does not yet appear to have a simple, coordinated, and comprehensive way for DReps and the community to assess how Treasury-funded grants and proposals have actually spent funds, what has been delivered, what impact has been achieved, what funds have been returned, and whether the spending represented value for money. Individual proposals may publish reports, dashboards, audits, milestone updates, or transaction records, and there are useful tools for tracking governance actions and Treasury movements. But RCADA is not currently aware of a single ecosystem-level reporting layer that allows DReps to easily evaluate the full Treasury-funded portfolio.
RCADA recognises that such reporting would be difficult. Treasury-funded work varies widely across infrastructure, tooling, governance, adoption, liquidity, education, operations, and community initiatives. Not every valuable outcome is easy to measure, and not every project can be judged by the same metric. Even so, better portfolio-level reporting would materially improve DRep decision-making and public accountability.
For that reason, RCADA supports this higher Net Change Limit with a clear expectation that Cardano Treasury governance continues to mature. The ecosystem needs stronger post-funding reporting, clearer portfolio-level visibility, better tracking of unused or returned funds, more consistent delivery evidence, and improved value-for-money assessment across funded work.
RCADA’s support is therefore conditional in spirit, even though the vote itself is a YES. The higher ceiling should preserve flexibility for DReps to consider credible proposals on their merits, but it should not weaken the discipline applied to individual withdrawals. Proposals should continue to be judged on constitutional compliance, public-good value, delivery credibility, transparency, accountability, sustainability, risk, and long-term benefit to Cardano.
On balance, RCADA supports this Info Action because it preserves governance flexibility during an important development period, while still leaving every future Treasury Withdrawal subject to separate DRep approval. RCADA votes YES with the clear expectation that the 500 million ADA Net Change Limit is treated as a maximum ceiling, not a spending target, and that any use of the additional headroom is reserved for high-conviction proposals that provide measurable and durable value to the Cardano ecosystem.
RCADA's full vote assessment can be found here:
https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/ - Abstain12.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- No10.4M ₳Rationale
Sustainability first. This amount of expenditure will hurt Cardano. I think the current expenditure is already too high, moving it to 500 million ADA makes 0 sense
- No9.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes8.6M ₳Rationale
私は、現時点の暗号資産市場の状況も考慮すると、この新しいNet Change Limitは妥当であると考えます。そのため、私は本提案に賛成します。一方で、来年以降は、どのような分野にどの程度のTreasury予算を配分するのかを、より計画的かつ透明性をもって示していくことが重要だと考えます。さらに、想定外の状況にも対応できるよう、予備費のような枠を設けることも有益だと考えます。\n\nI believe this new Net Change Limit is appropriate, taking into account the current state of the cryptocurrency market. Therefore, I vote Yes on this proposal. At the same time, beginning next year, I believe it will be important to present, in a more planned and transparent manner, how much Treasury funding will be allocated to each area. Furthermore, I believe it would be beneficial to establish a contingency reserve to help address unforeseen circumstances.
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- No7.4M ₳Rationale
Voting NO. Not urgent.
I vote No. Governance has sucked out a lot of air from the Cardano space. Its July 2026. Lets focus on using the platforms and products we have now - for a few months.
I don't even have time to use Cardano with all these governance actions dropping. Many users are just reading and debating the latest governance proposals.
- YesChanged7.2M ₳History
Earlier votes
No27d agoSuperseded
- Yes6M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.9M ₳Rationale
I am changing my vote from NO to YES.
My original concern was approving a higher Net Change Limit without a sufficiently compelling strategic purpose behind it. Since then, the Alpha Growth proposal has provided that context. While each treasury withdrawal must still be evaluated independently on its own merits, I no longer believe the NCL lacks a sufficiently compelling strategic justification. - Yes5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged5.4M ₳Rationale
After consideration and review, changed vote from no to yes. Funding growth is key, and with strong new proposals coming through, I'd like to see this increased. Thanks
Earlier votes
No28d agoSuperseded
When the new strategy is formed and a roadmap has been established... then we can think about this.
- Yes4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- No4.4M ₳Rationale
Although I am not a fan of a low NCL and would gladly support removing it entirely in the future, I currently believe it serves an important protective function. Our governance is still relatively immature, and the limit helps safeguard the treasury from excessive spending.
If we require additional funds later in this funding season, we can address it at that time.
- Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "Net Change Limit: Cardano Treasury (Epochs 613–713)" (gov_action15at...hakceq), pois entendemos que a atualização do Net Change Limit para 500 milhões de ADA estabelece um limite de movimentação do Tesouro compatível com as necessidades atuais da governança, preservando a capacidade de financiar iniciativas estratégicas para o ecossistema sem representar uma autorização automática de gastos. Também avaliamos positivamente a relação entre custo e benefício da proposta, uma vez que ela apenas amplia o teto máximo disponível para movimentação, mantendo cada retirada do Tesouro sujeita à análise, deliberação e aprovação individual dos DReps por meio de ações de governança específicas. Além disso, a metodologia de contabilização apresentada é clara e objetiva, considerando apenas valores efetivamente registrados on-chain e incluindo as retiradas já realizadas no período de vigência, o que fortalece a previsibilidade orçamentária, a transparência, a rastreabilidade e o controle sobre a utilização dos recursos comunitários.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action "Net Change Limit: Cardano Treasury (Epochs 613–713)" (gov_action15at...hakceq), because we believe updating the Net Change Limit to 500 million ADA establishes a Treasury spending ceiling that is appropriate for the current needs of Cardano’s governance while preserving the ecosystem’s ability to fund strategic initiatives without constituting automatic authorization for Treasury expenditures. We also believe the proposal presents a sound cost-benefit profile because it only increases the maximum amount that may be withdrawn, while preserving the requirement that every individual Treasury withdrawal must still be reviewed and approved separately by DReps through dedicated governance actions. Furthermore, the proposed accounting methodology is clear and transparent, considering only amounts actually recorded on-chain and including withdrawals already executed during the applicable period. This approach strengthens budget predictability, accountability, transparency, and the traceability of community funds. - Yes4M ₳No rationale
- No3.1M ₳Rationale
There is no way in hell I am voting to raise the Net Change Limit so that we can blow even more of the treasury on useless spending.
You all got what you wanted by spending what you did, now you have to live with that for a year as the price of ADA tanks.
All I can hope for is that there is actually a lower NCL in the future and that spending will finally be curtailed, and that builders delivering on chain transaction volume will finally get some treasury funding instead of Charles and IOG draining us for the foreseeable future.
The madness has to end eventually.
- Yes2.8M ₳Rationale
send it
- No2.8M ₳No rationale
- No2.6M ₳Rationale
私は本Info Actionに反対します。
Net Change LimitはTreasury支出そのものを承認するものではなく、一定期間にTreasuryから引き出せる上限を定める財政ガードレールです。したがって、十分な余地は必要ですが、過度に大きくしすぎるべきではありません。
現時点では、350M ADAのNCLでも、Cardanoにとって重要なCore開発、OSS tooling、wallet security、Mithril、data access、governance coordinationの多くは十分にカバーできていると判断します。優先度の高い提案を選別すれば、350M ADAの範囲内で対応可能です。
一方で、500M ADAへの拡大は、必須開発を守るためというより、追加の大型提案、商業案件、Adoption案件、流動性支援まで受け入れる余地を広げる意味合いが強いと見ています。
ADAの将来価値が上昇する可能性を考えると、今はTreasury支出を厳格に絞り、Cardanoの基盤維持に必要なものを優先すべきです。Treasuryは短期的に使い切る資金ではなく、将来の成長を支える戦略資産として扱うべきです。
そのため、私は500M ADAへのNCL拡大には反対し、現行の350M ADAの範囲で十分に優先順位をつけられると考えます。
I vote No on this Info Action.
The Net Change Limit does not approve Treasury spending by itself. It is a fiscal guardrail that sets the maximum amount that can be withdrawn from the Treasury during a given period. Therefore, the limit should provide enough room, but it should not be expanded more than necessary.
At this stage, I believe the existing 350M ADA NCL is sufficient to cover many of Cardano’s important needs, including core development, open-source tooling, wallet security, Mithril, data access, and governance coordination. With proper prioritization, these essential areas can be funded within the current limit.
In my view, expanding the NCL to 500M ADA is less about protecting essential development and more about creating additional room for large proposals, commercial initiatives, adoption programs, and liquidity-related spending.
Given the possibility that ADA may increase in value in the future, Treasury spending should remain strict and selective now. The Treasury should be treated not as funds to be spent in the short term, but as a strategic asset to support Cardano’s future growth.
- YesChanged2.5M ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain28d agoSuperseded
- Abstain2.5M ₳Rationale
Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted2.2M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
I support maintaining the ability to fund projects.
- No2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on the proposal to raise the Net Change Limit by 150M ADA.
This is not a vote against treasury spending, ecosystem growth, DeFi, marketing, infrastructure, or ambition. I have supported multiple treasury withdrawals where I believe the case is strong, particularly for wallet security, self-custody, developer tooling, open-source infrastructure and essential public goods.
However, I do not believe the NCL should be increased at this time.
The Net Change Limit is a constitutional treasury guardrail. It is intended to cap treasury withdrawals over a defined period and force prioritisation. If the limit is raised whenever live demand exceeds available capacity, the NCL risks becoming a formality rather than a meaningful discipline mechanism.
My concern is also structural. The current NCL window is too long, and we are already under significant pressure early in the cycle. I believe Cardano should move toward shorter NCL windows, perhaps 3–6 months, with appropriately sized limits. Shorter windows would allow DReps to reassess priorities, market conditions, treasury needs and proposal quality more frequently.
Before increasing the NCL, I believe DReps should first debate and agree a better treasury framework, including category-level budget buckets for areas such as core infrastructure, wallets and security, developer tooling, governance operations, growth and adoption, marketing, DeFi or treasury investment, contingency and reserves.
I also believe Cardano should develop a more market-aware treasury strategy. In stronger ADA markets, the community should consider converting a defined, governance-approved portion of treasury ADA into stable reserves and possibly other approved non-ADA assets. Those reserves could help fund essential operations, public goods and strategic opportunities during weak ADA markets, reducing the need to spend ADA when its long-term opportunity cost is higher.
I am not opposed to the Treasury eventually acting as a more sophisticated sovereign reserve or VC-style ecosystem investment function. But that should happen within agreed buckets, risk limits, stablecoin policies, concentration limits, conflict controls, due diligence standards, public reporting and clear accountability for returns and losses.
I have set out my broader thinking on NCL reform here:
https://x.com/Cardano_Will/status/2074566189389336964For these reasons, I believe the framework should come before the expanded ceiling. I support serious NCL reform, but I do not support increasing the current limit by 150M ADA now.
I vote NO.
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
The usefulness of the NCL is debatable, but I am voting yes so as not to block the Cardano PRIME proposal.
I would rather the NCL approach to treasury management be replaced with a cost/benefit framework that assesses proposals based on the value they provide, across metrics like transactions, liquidity, UX/DevX, infrastructure, etc.
It does not make sense to turn down a highly valuable and crucially important proposal like PRIME based solely on the NCL, when the value it returns to Cardano will be far greater than the spend. To prevent this kind of situation happening in future (where both an NCL change and a treasury withdrawal are required to proceed a proposal), we should consider changing our approach to treasury management.
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
I reluctantly vote Yes. The proposed limit is higher than I believe sustainable in the long run, and I don’t want it to become the default baseline for future budgets. However, Cardano’s on-chain governance is still in its infancy, and it’s crucial to maintain momentum while the ecosystem establishes effective governance processes. I see this as a transitional measure that offers the flexibility needed to fund worthwhile initiatives while we develop a more disciplined and sustainable budgeting framework. In the future, I anticipate that Net Change Limits will better reflect long-term Treasury stewardship and fiscal sustainability.
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
Finally!
- Yes1.5M ₳Rationale
I'd prefer to abolish the concept of an NCL in general, since it seems to be used as a spending target rather than a limit. But since that's not an option at the moment, I prefer to see it increased. DReps have a responsibility to take treasury fund availability into account when approval proposals. An arbitrary limit on this amount is akin to training wheels for the DReps and prevents the ability to seize opportunity as it arises. For any DReps reading this, please do not look at the NCL as an allowance that you need to spend all at once... if the proposal will not net positive value for Cardano relative to the ask, do not approve it just because we have funds available...
- No1.3M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote NO on this proposal to raise the Net Change Limit for epochs 613–713 to 500M ADA. I recognize that builder funding matters and that a lower ADA price can make the existing limit feel tight, but a spending cap should only be raised when it remains sustainable relative to treasury inflows and when a clear, evidence-based bottleneck has been shown. The current 350M ADA limit is already a large guardrail, and raising it mid-period because capacity is becoming constrained weakens the purpose of having a limit at all. Liquid democracy should help Cardano make disciplined long-term choices, not react emotionally to short-term funding pressure. I prefer to preserve the existing NCL, prioritize the highest-impact proposals within it, and reconsider any increase only with stronger data and a modest sustainability buffer.
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
Let us ask for information, set goals, set an NCL for those goals, ask for all proposals, vote and then stick to it. Setting an NCL which is "only a guide" and "won't all be spent" and then having to increase the already bloated allocation to address the communities failure to push back on "first in best dressed" non-transparent omnibus requests is not working.
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
The treasury is not a credit line to be endlessly raised on demand. This info action recycles the same blunt cap approach without adding strategic oversight or tying limits to actual funding needs. It ignores the imperative for disciplined budgeting and risk management in a fixed-supply ecosystem. Throwing arbitrary numbers at spending only delays the hard work of prioritization and accountability.
I reject this loose spending mindset entirely.
- Yes1M ₳No rationale