Net Change Limit of 300 Million ADA for Epochs 613–713
53 SPOs voted · 1 with a rationale · 1 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
- NoNo rationale
- AbstainRationale
I am voting ABSTAIN on the governance action to set a “Net Change Limit of 300 Million ADA for Epochs 613–713” (gov_action1wwj...tft9tp).
As much as I would like to have voted YES on this proposal, I am choosing to vote ABSTAIN as a YES vote would validate the quality of the proposal submission. When compared side by side to the previous 350 million ada NCL proposal it lacks the detail and structure of the previous proposal. While it may be argued that this is simply setting a socially agreed off-chain parameter for Constitutional purposes, the quality of governance actions recently has taken a dip and voting YES here feels like it would be a validation of this standard and perpetuate the decline in quality.
The previous 350 million ada proposal provided supporting links that included “Treasury Inflows in 2025 data”, and a “Data Model”, as well as clearly outlining a proposed “ratification methodology” to account for inconsistencies in reporting across explorers. In comparison, the brevity of this proposal feels reactionary following the passing of the 350 million ada proposal and an attempt at achieving another quick win for the proposer, following the recent Constitution update, by submitting this proposal which is popular in sentiment but lacking in detail.
Reading through rationales that have been provided to date there does appear to be some confusion among DReps. I have read many that either believe that the previous NCL proposal failed to pass, or that they favoured a lower NCL.
The former stems from confusion regarding the Constitutional Committee vote on the previous proposal. With 3 absent votes, some explorers currently show the proposal as one vote shy of “approval”. An unfortunate side effect of CC participation rates and lack of clarity regarding when voting is required. Personally, as a former ICC member, I would never have failed to submit a vote and record feedback in a rationale and so the recent participation slump is frustrating to see, especially as someone who entered the past 2 CC election events as part of consortiums that were overlooked. That said, the Constitution states that an NCL requires >50% DRep voting stake approval, and so it is my understanding that the previous proposal did indeed pass and is currently active.
The latter, favouring a lower NCL, is equally perplexing to me (in this context). While I appreciate that voting NO to both 350 million and 300 million ada NCL proposals signals opposition to both and a desire for an even lower NCL, the fact of the matter is that the 350 million ada NCL is now in effect. Voting NO in favour of a lower proposal, while rejecting a proposal that is lower than the current one in the meantime feels somewhat counter-intuitive. A NO vote here is essentially reinforcing the previous 350 million ada NCL at this point. For this reason, I would have voted YES had the proposal been put together to a higher standard.
I would still like to see some in-depth evaluation and review of the first year of treasury spend before jumping straight into another funding round. I appreciate that a number of proposals focussed on research and tooling which might be largely abstract from the everyday user but so far, the only change to my day-to-day interactions on Cardano that has felt tangible as an end user are the vast number of updates released by Cexplorer, which have been great to see. I am referring to the first bulk budget votes here and appreciate that the recent arrival of USDCx is also a massive change to end-user experience on the chain.
Until the Pentad swooped in at the eleventh hour, the community had voted to approve 277/350 million of the NCL for year one. With one year of on-chain spend history, it will likely be even harder for the same actors to seek continued funding without demonstrable results and so I do still feel that a 300 million ada NCL is workable if approved.
Although only DRep votes are counted for NCL proposal results, the ledger nonetheless allows SPOs to vote on all info actions. An SPO vote is attached to this vote transaction to maintain the pool voting record.
- AbstainNo rationale
- AbstainNo rationale
- AbstainNo rationale
- AbstainNo rationale
- AbstainNo rationale
- AbstainNo rationale
- AbstainNo rationale
- AbstainNo rationale
- AbstainNo rationale
- AbstainNo rationale
- AbstainNo rationale
- AbstainNo rationale
- AbstainNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesRevotedHistory
Earlier votes
Yes6mo agoSuperseded
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- AbstainNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- NoNo rationale
- AbstainNo rationale
- AbstainNo rationale
- AbstainNo rationale
- AbstainNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- AbstainNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale