Net Change Limit (Epoch 613 to Epoch 713)
160 DReps voted · 60 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 8.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 7.1M ₳ Rationale
TL;DR: NCLs are in reality a bit of performative theater mandated by the constitution. I abstain. Theater that can and will be modified - if the majority of DReps desire so. We have seen that. So, I will focus my attentions on voting No to proposals that to me seem worth less than what Cardano holders are being asked to invest in them and voting Yes to projects that are likely to yield more for Cardano.
I listened to an interesting IntersectCBC space on the 2026-27 Net Change Limit. Essentially, we have a bit of performative theater in Cardano with the NCL. As we have seen in the first year, if the majority wants to extend / increase the NCL to fit something that the majority wants, it will be done, regardless of what was previously approved.
I also voted to extend the first NCL in order to fit in the Critical Integrations Budget and Treasury Withdrawal. The NCL - as a social consensus that is preformed 12 or 18 months in advance - does not matter as much as we think it will matter.
What matters down the line will be identifying projects that are worth more than what Cardano holders will allocate to them from the Treasury. It's a high bar.
NCL schmNCL.... I want caution when approving "spending" from the Treasury - the NCL is just a mental crutch that may be an excuse not to carefully scrutinize Treasury outflows. We don't want to approve projects just because they are below the NCL.
A few weeks ago I thought of rejecting NCLs that are higher than 99% of the Net Income available from the inflows during the preceding period of the same length. That would mean voting no for the 120% that this NCL action proposes. Treasury inflows for 2025 are projected to be approximately 290 million ada. That would mean approving something closer to 285 million ada.
However, NCLs seem to be more of performance theater. The real battles are the treasury withdrawals. So, there is no need to stop the train - over the NCL. There is literally no one who knows the ideal NCL today. It could be 150 Million ADA, it could be 250 Million ADA. Or it could be 400 MIllion ADA if we are to integrate the NASDAQ in 2026. Also, weak proposals may pass the withdrawal stage early on in the year, with a great proposal appearing at the end of the NCL period (we saw this with The Pentad proposal in 2025)... so we will stimulate a race to fill up the NCL - to avoid this artificial cut.
Finally, as my preference was to have an NCL smaller less than 100% of the Net Income, I abstain from approving 120%. There is a solid case for removing the NCL from the constitution - as it fundamentally does not limit anything - and is seemingly more red tape. - Yes 6.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 6M ₳ Rationale
I do not want to stand in the way ultimately of progress so will abstain. I'm not satisfied with the NCL amount being so high, however this can be further managed as each proposal comes in throughout the next year and a half. We can play around with the numbers to stretch it out to make it seem like it's a lower amount due to it going into 2027, however I think that's just to cover the basis that an extension won't be needed like this past year to handle timing/pace of governance issues. I'm never really afraid to spend, especially when it means forward progress. However, as the realities of the reserve start to sink in for many we're on limited runway and curbing spend to ensure sustainability isn't something that can be done later, it must be done now. We approved a lot in funding last year - much of it that is going to carry into late 2026-2027 as it is. It does seem this year should be less, and focus on just a few key issues such as liquidity, marketing and growth.
- Yes 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ Rationale
The NCL is required by the constitution for treasury withdrawals. Voting yes, as it's based in actual inflows and an already approved budget by DReps. We can revisit and adjust later if needed.
- Yes 5.3M ₳ Rationale
STORM Partners votes YES to establish a Net Change Limit of 350M ADA, covering the period from February 2026 to July 2027. We support this ceiling as a necessary framework to ensure operational continuity and accommodate key strategic commitments, specifically the previously approved 50M ADA Stablecoin Liquidity initiative. This allocation aligns directly with our mandate to enhance ecosystem efficiency and attract capital, prioritizing growth mechanisms that can ultimately drive treasury inflows.
We acknowledge the valid concerns raised by other delegates that a high limit could inadvertently become a spending target rather than a maximum cap. However, the NCL is merely a safety valve, not a mandate to spend; the true responsibility lies with DReps to exercise fiscal discipline during the specific budget application stages. By approving this limit, we empower the governance system to function effectively, reserving our scrutiny for the merit and ROI of individual withdrawal requests rather than restricting the network's capacity to invest in its own growth. - Yes 4.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.2M ₳ Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "Net Change Limit (Epoch 613 to Epoch 713)" (gov_action1m3xx08yv788vfxqh6nfvrjtvmqpwezsy0ggaczctkyjmttc2wmxsq4jsr7q), pois o limite anual de gastos do tesouro proposto está alinhado com o nível de responsabilidade financeira desejado pela comunidade. A faixa de 350 milhões de ADA foi definida com base na receita do tesouro em 2025, no valor de 306 milhões de ADA, somada aos 44 milhões de ADA ainda pendentes de saque referentes à proposta "2025 Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget" (Gov Action ID: gov_action1u4jrcvlkppjzuv5j9z5ksacwtvv77h6glu0knpcjut8gvjjfu0cqqt3alsy), aprovada pelos DReps em 2025. Outro fator relevante considerado foi a necessidade de definição prévia de um valor fixo, uma vez que um limite variável baseado em percentuais dificultaria a elaboração de um orçamento preciso, previsível e alinhado às demandas e prioridades da comunidade Cardano.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action "Net Change Limit (Epoch 613 to Epoch 713)" (gov_action1m3xx08yv788vfxqh6nfvrjtvmqpwezsy0ggaczctkyjmttc2wmxsq4jsr7q), because the proposed annual treasury spending limit is aligned with the level of financial responsibility expected by the community. The 350 million ADA range was defined based on the treasury revenue in 2025, totaling 306 million ADA, plus 44 million ADA still pending withdrawal from the "2025 Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget" proposal (Gov Action ID: gov_action1u4jrcvlkppjzuv5j9z5ksacwtvv77h6glu0knpcjut8gvjjfu0cqqt3alsy), which was approved by DReps in 2025. Another important factor considered was the need to define a fixed amount in advance, as a variable limit based on percentages would hinder the creation of a precise, predictable budget aligned with the Cardano community’s priorities and needs. - Yes 4.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.8M ₳ Rationale
Makes sense and isn’t controversial in my mind.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Straightforward and needed.
- Yes 3.7M ₳ Rationale
I agree to the initial allocation of 350 million ADA for 500 days, as our new NCL. As always, this does not mean we will necessarily expend the full amount.
I will evaluate and vote on future treasury withdrawals on a case by case basis with careful consideration. This is a pivotal year, during which DReps (and the Cardano community supporting them) have gained substantial experience in governance processes and prioritizing genuine ecosystem needs. I am highly optimistic about Cardano's growth, particularly as this is only the second year of our governance system. - Yes 3.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.8M ₳ Rationale
This proposal does not provide adequate rationale to justify the planned NCL of 350 Million ADA.
Although many see NCL as a spending limit that does not need to be met, functionally it has so far been treated by the community and proposers as a pot of money to be used up every year.
To be fiscally responsible, I would expect there be a concrete plan in place on how this ADA is to be budgeted prior to approving a large spending limit.
A budget serves as a practical and honest way of considering the financial impacts the spending of ADA will have on ADA holders, and without some kind of collaborative community budget presented to support a large NCL of 350 Million ADA cannot support this proposal.
There has been no proof summited to date that we need to spend anywhere close to this NCL amount, and I would have expected a community poll and engagement on this topic before submitting on chain. That way we could have multiple choice options to gauge sentiment on what this level should be.
I would personally expect a NCL of 100 Million ADA or less since there has been no budget submitted.
- Yes 2.7M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
I prefer we whack it in half, but the timeline extension to 17 months kind of gets at that concern. I am always worried about sustainability and our treasury revenue is in the 300M range so as long as we dont go higher we should be good (to not destroy the treasury).
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
私は、Cardanoは依然として成長・投資フェーズにあると考えています。
本Net Change Limit（NCL）は、最低限の運用上限としては妥当であり、
ガバナンス上の前提条件を整えるものとして支持します。
2025年のトレジャリー純流入は約3.07億ADAでしたが、
本NCL（350M ADA）は約16か月超の期間を対象としており、
年率換算では前年実績を下回る、慎重な水準に設定されています。
その上で、今後のTreasury Withdrawalにおいては、
必要な場面での攻めの投資を躊躇すべきではなく、
状況に応じてNCLの上振れや再調整を検討する余地も
引き続き確保されるべきだと考えます。
I believe that Cardano is still in a growth and investment phase.
This Net Change Limit (NCL) is reasonable as a minimum operational cap,
and I support it as a necessary governance baseline.In 2025, the treasury recorded a net inflow of approximately 307 million ADA.
Since this NCL of 350 million ADA applies to a period of over 16 months,
it represents a more conservative level on an annualized basis compared to last year.At the same time, future treasury withdrawals should allow for
proactive investments when justified, while keeping the option to
revisit or adjust the NCL upward as circumstances evolve. - Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.8M ₳ Rationale
Voting No on the proposed NCL of ₳350 million. As ADA issuance from the reserve continues to slow over time, treasury spending must remain sustainable and forward-looking. While the proposed NCL period extends beyond 12 months, setting a higher absolute cap risks anchoring spending to historical inflows rather than future declining issuance, and normalising near-full drawdown without retaining a buffer. Although the NCL is a guardrail, withdrawals are likely to approach the full limit. I intend to support an alternative NCL of ₳300 million, which represents a more sustainable rate of spend.
- Yes 1.8M ₳ Rationale
I am voting YES on the Net Change Limit for Epochs 613–713 because it strikes a sensible balance between fiscal prudence and operational flexibility for governance. Setting a clear spending cap protects the long-term sustainability of the Treasury while still allowing room to fund high-quality proposals that advance the ecosystem. A defined Net Change Limit also provides predictability and discipline to the budgeting process, helping DReps, SPOs, and the community evaluate proposals within a coherent financial framework rather than on an ad hoc basis. Overall, this parameter supports responsible stewardship of Treasury funds and strengthens confidence in Cardano’s evolving governance system.
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.6M ₳ Rationale
The proposed NCL feels high relative to actual treasury income. But voting NO would block all treasury spending and hurt Cardano development, which is worse. Voting YES as the lesser of two imperfect choices. Future NCL proposals should stay closer to real treasury income.
- Yes 1.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.2M ₳ Rationale
We don’t want to spend money just because we can,
but we also don’t want to miss opportunities because we’re not allowed to. - Yes 1.2M ₳ Rationale
I support this proposal. For now I think it's a good idea to stick to a 350M yearly NCL. I also like the fact that it's set for 18 months for now, relieving the pressure to get a new one voted in and eliminating the need for extending the current one after a year.
I do think we could get rid of the NCL altogether btw or, if not, making it a protocol parameter indifferent to a set period (where each treasury withdrawal also changes the parameter). - Yes 1M ₳ Rationale
As a DRep I've consistently advocated for a business-minded approach to Cardano’s governance. My primary directive is to ensure the long-term stability of the protocol and the protection of our treasury against profligate depletion. With this proposal we are essentially defining the fiscal guardrails for the next sixteen months.
The rationale provided by the Cardano Budget Committee regarding the "115% of realized Net Income" figure initially triggered my skeptical reflexes. Deficit spending is a slippery slope that I have historically voted against when specific line items —such as the Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget, which I opposed in September 2025 — threatened the Constitution's conservative principles. However, we are looking at a duration of approximately 100 epochs (February 2026 to July 2027). If the treasury inflows from 2025 (approx. 307 million ADA over roughly 73 epochs) remain consistent, our projected income over this new 100-epoch period would likely exceed 420 million ADA. Therefore, setting **a withdrawal cap of 350 million ADA is not an act of overspending; rather, it is a mathematically prudent constraint that effectively mandates a treasury surplus. **It forces the ecosystem to spend less than it earns, aligning perfectly with my objective to protect the treasury and ensure disinflationary stability.
Furthermore, I find the strategic realignment of the NCL cycle to a mid-year schedule to be an operational necessity. As someone who has managed international project lifecycles, I recognize the inefficiency of synchronizing critical fiscal planning with year-end holidays. Shifting the cycle ensures that future budget committees have access to complete, annualized data before forecasting, thereby reducing speculative variance in our governance. While **I maintain my reservations regarding the previously approved 50 million ADA allocation for stablecoins — a measure I voted against because I believe market forces, not treasury subsidies, should drive liquidity **— I must respect the democratic consensus of the DReps who approved it. A constitutionally compliant NCL must account for these existing liabilities; to do otherwise would be to advocate for a governance deadlock, which serves no one.
- No 1M ₳ Rationale
We vote NO on the proposal setting the Net Change Limit at 350 million ADA for Epochs 613–713.
While we recognize the intention to account for previously approved initiatives, we do not support increasing the Net Change Limit beyond the ecosystem’s realized treasury inflows. In our view, exceeding historical net income introduces an unnecessary step toward deficit-style treasury management and weakens the principle of fiscal discipline.
The proposed 300 million ADA limit already represents a very large spending capacity and is sufficient to support innovation and ecosystem growth within this period. Establishing a higher limit at this stage risks normalizing incremental expansions of the treasury ceiling and sets a precedent that may be difficult to reverse.
We believe that 2026 should be a year in which the Cardano community consciously learns to operate with stronger budgetary restraint, prioritizing efficiency, impact, and accountability over expanding spending envelopes.
- Yes 941.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 860.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 818K ₳ Rationale
The reasoning behind this proposal seems sound.
- Yes 804.1K ₳ No rationale
- No 793K ₳ Rationale
Prefer to see a lower limit.