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.
- Yes129.3K ₳No rationale
- No123.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes107.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes95.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes92.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes72.7K ₳No rationale
- No72K ₳Rationale
NO. I do not support increasing the Net Change Limit from 350M ADA to 500M ADA. The proposal does not provide sufficient evidence that the current limit has become a genuine constraint or that such a significant increase is necessary. Any adjustment to this fiscal guardrail should be supported by transparent data, demonstrated funding demand, and a clear impact assessment rather than assumptions or market conditions.
- No63.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes59.9K ₳No rationale
- No56K ₳No rationale
- No50.5K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted47.8K ₳Rationale
We have come to an impasse where the line between necessity / needs and overspending on wants is now coming into light. Not to denigrate the magnificent and diligent work done by all the great TEAMS and developers within CARDANO but It is now more apparent than ever that a spending problem exists within the ecosystem. Each project has a viable reason to request funds but some are more visibly required than others Ie: Infrastructure to maintain NODE production over a marketing booth for a single crypto friendly event , while some teams threaten to shutdown and or leave the ecosystem with a known history of creating useable products for the community. I cannot in my right conscious vote to add an additional 150 M $ADA to the NCL without voicing this observation of the current treasury hemorrhage we are experiencing from multiple projects that are deeming themselves as more integral to the Protocol operation as the next. We must find a suitable way to control the treasury drain before we doom the Ecosystem to the same fates as Polkadot, Tezos, and other Blockchains that enacted governance and failed to grow. The treasury must be used at this time to facilitate growth and stability but the amount of projects requesting funding is too great, a treasury proposal withdrawal amount limit maximum per request may be an option but it is not my place to demand action upon this idea. I find value in growth and see the additional 150M $ADA at current pricing allowable but future NCL limit increase proposals shall receive a negative Vote from me until a positive inflow to the treasury is established. The NCL narrative has come nearly full circle from original NCL proposal to set the limit to 275M $ADA, we are slowly creeping closer to that too large a sum of NCL conversation and we have now witnessed the need for a sustainable treasury. I hereby publicly and reluctantly vote YES for this proposal for the sake of growth in my ecosystem of choice and community ~Lourde Ouroborus Imperator Aeternalis ~ (Amended due to Orig. NCL amount error)
Earlier votes
Yes20d agoSuperseded
We have come to an impasse where the line between necessity / needs and overspending on wants is now coming into light. Not to denigrate the magnificent and diligent work done by all the great TEAMS and developers within CARDANO but It is now more apparent than ever that a spending problem exists within the ecosystem. Each project has a viable reason to request funds but some are more visibly required than others Ie: Infrastructure to maintain NODE production over a marketing booth for a single crypto friendly event , while some teams threaten to shutdown and or leave the ecosystem with a known history of creating useable products for the community. I cannot in my right conscious vote to add an additional 150 M $ADA to the NCL without voicing this observation of the current treasury hemorrhage we are experiencing from multiple projects that are deeming themselves as more integral to the Protocol operation as the next. We must find a suitable way to control the treasury drain before we doom the Ecosystem to the same fates as Polkadot, Tezos, and other Blockchains that enacted governance and failed to grow. The treasury must be used at this time to facilitate growth and stability but the amount of projects requesting funding is too great, a treasury proposal withdrawal amount limit maximum per request may be an option but it is not my place to demand action upon this idea. I find value in growth and see the additional 150M $ADA at current pricing allowable but future NCL limit increase proposals shall receive a negative Vote from me until a positive inflow to the treasury is established. The NCL narrative has come nearly full circle from original NCL proposal to set the limit to 550M $ADA , we are slowly creeping closer to that NCL and we have now witnessed the need for a sustainable treasury. I hereby publicly and reluctantly vote YES for this proposal for the sake of growth in my ecosystem of choice and community ~Lourde Ouroborus Imperator Aeternalis ~
- No45.3K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted31.7K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
- No24.4K ₳Rationale
Hell no.
- No16.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes9.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes8.1K ₳No rationale
- No6.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes4.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes688.2 ₳No rationale
- Abstain0 ₳No rationale