Net Change Limit of 300 Million ADA for Epochs 613–713
167 DReps voted · 60 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No 592.3M ₳ Rationale
Summary
Yoroi DRep votes NO on the proposed 300M ADA Net Change Limit for Epochs 613–713. While we understand the intention to reinforce fiscal discipline due to market situation, we believe reducing the ceiling at this stage may be premature given the timeframe and current ecosystem dynamics.
Rationale
• Measurable accountability through 2030 KPIs
With the 2030 Cardano KPIs now in place, treasury allocations can be assessed against clearer long-term targets. Yoroi believes spending discipline should be reinforced through KPI alignment, proposal-level scrutiny, and milestone-based controls rather than by tightening the structural ceiling itself.
• Timeframe concern and market variability
The 17-month window increases uncertainty. In a lower ADA price environment, fiat-denominated costs require more ADA, and a tighter cap could unintentionally constrain legitimate initiatives that arise during this period.
• Structural flexibility for ecosystem priorities
The Net Change Limit defines a maximum boundary, not a spending target. Maintaining sufficient flexibility at the structural level allows governance to respond to critical infrastructure and ecosystem needs while continuing to apply strict oversight at the proposal level.
Conclusion
Yoroi supports responsible treasury management and clear accountability standards. However, given the duration of the period and current conditions, Yoroi considers a reduction to 300M to be premature and therefore votes No.
- Yes 428.5M ₳ Rationale
I am voting YES for a 300M ADA NCL.
I agree with the logic of limiting spending to below 300M ADA, the previous year's inflow.
Additionally, a 350M ADA NCL was proposed on January 10, 2026, but the price has fallen by nearly 30% since the proposal was submitted, temporarily falling to the level of January 2021, before Shelley d=0. Under these circumstances, I believe it is necessary to more strictly reconsider Budget priorities and protect ADA holders from excessive inflation.
私は300M ADA NCLにYESを投票します。
私は前年度の流入額300 M ADA 以下に支出額を抑えるというロジックに納得しています。
また、2026/1/10 2:22:09に、350M ADAのNCLが提案されていましたが、この提案の提出時点から、現時点までに３割近く価格が下落しており、一時Shelley d=0より前の2021年1月の水準まで下落しました。このような状況下においては、Budgetの優先順位をより厳しく見直して過度なインフレーションからADAホルダーを保護する必要があると考えています。
- No 297.4M ₳ Rationale
Summary
EMURGO as a DRep votes NO on the proposal to set the Net Change Limit at 300M ADA for Epochs 613–713, with rationale outlined below.
Rationale
EMURGO supports the principle of fiscal discipline and acknowledges the reasoning that aligning the NCL below prior year inflows signals prudence. However, the Net Change Limit is a ceiling, not a spending mandate. Tightening the ceiling does not in itself improve spending quality or accountability, which should instead be driven by rigorous evaluation standards, milestone based releases, and alignment with the 2030 Cardano KPIs.
The proposed 300M cap covers a 17 month period, which introduces meaningful uncertainty. Most ecosystem delivery costs are effectively fiat based, and in a lower ADA price environment the same real world work requires more ADA. Reducing the ADA ceiling during a period of reduced purchasing power may unintentionally constrain legitimate strategic initiatives, even under disciplined governance.
In addition, broader ecosystem signals, including direction at the Pentad level and discussions around Critical Integrations, emphasize strengthening infrastructure and longer term readiness. Governance parameters should not unintentionally limit execution capacity for these priorities without a forward looking treasury needs assessment.
For these reasons, EMURGO believes that maintaining the 350M ceiling provides necessary flexibility while still allowing strict scrutiny at the proposal level, and therefore votes NO.
- Yes 240.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 221.8M ₳ Rationale
TL;DR: EDC votes NO on gov_action1wwjwkg2g0qwr0mehey9r8gwn6qz3r28wl6wdl2s75kfmpy8j87tqqtft9tp;
The NCL is an upper limit for withdrawals from the treasury. A new NCL can always be voted on and we already have a NCL of 350m ADA for the same time frame in place.
- Yes 174.4M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 160.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 135.1M ₳ Rationale
The Cardano Foundation votes YES. The proposed 300M ada limit falls within our margin of acceptance, as it roughly matches 2025 treasury inflows.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Our support for this NCL is driven by the following key factors:
Fiscal Conservatism & Alignment with Inflows: The 300M ada figure closely matches the actual treasury inflows observed in 2025 (~306.9M ada). Given that the ecosystem ran a deficit in the 2025 NCL cycle, a tighter constraint for 2026 is acceptable. Furthermore, many of the treasury withdrawals approved in 2025 have not yet fully resolved core base-layer bottlenecks (such as TPS, finality, and throughput). We believe a more conservative spending ceiling ensures that future funding is prioritized effectively.
Strategic Realignment of the Budget Cycle: This proposal successfully retains the ~16.5-month timeline (Epoch 613–713). This permanently shifts the budgeting cycle away from the end-of-year holiday season to a mid-year schedule, which is expected to improve governance participation.
Constitutional Clarity: We maintain that the current 350M ada NCL (Epochs 613–713) is constitutionally valid per the language and requirements of the Constitution, however if the CC votes in the affirmative for this NCL, it will help reduce uncertainty as to whether there is a valid NCL. We urge CC members to clarify whether a CC vote is necessary for an NCL, in their opinion, or not.
The Cardano Foundation votes YES. Our support is based on maintaining the stability of the treasury. We encourage the community and future proposers to view this NCL as a hard ceiling, not a spending goal, and to keep demanding thorough reporting on the effectiveness of all treasury withdrawals.
NOTE on 'Internal Voting':
The fields constitutional and unconstitutional below reflect the CF governance teams' individual opinions whether they are for or against the proposal. Reason for this inconsistency is, that CIP-136 is at the moment only applicable to CC rationales, but we want to record the internal opinions of our DRep assessment transparently as well. - Yes 93.3M ₳ Rationale
As a DRep, I have decided to vote YES on the proposal: Net Change Limit of 300 Million ADA for Epochs 613–713
My rationale:
For context: The previous proposal set the NCL at 350M ADA. This proposal lowers the NCL by 50M ADA to 300M ADA for the period between epochs 613 - 713.
Spending needs to be balanced between protecting against selling pressure that lowers the price of ADA (and also security incentives) and smart investments that can support ADA price growth in the long term.
The price of ADA has dropped significantly to $0.25, which is the level of 2020/2021. At this time, it is wise to limit spending and increase the NCL as needed.
The NCL can be changed at any time. Setting a lower NCL at the beginning signals an effort to spend responsibly. Let's only increase the NCL if there is a compelling reason to do so.
At the current price of ADA, we have about $78M for investments, which is $13M less than with the NCL of 350M ADA. This is an acceptable budget. However, markets are volatile, and these numbers can change at any time.
It would be wise to evaluate the impact of projects that received funding last year. This would tell us in which cases the investments from the Treasury paid off and when they did not. This is one of the aspects that should determine the setting of the NCL.
Last year, we approved the NCL. Subsequently, there were several unsuccessful attempts to reduce it. It seems that the same scenario will be repeated this year. Instead of debating the ideal NCL before the on-chain vote, coordination is taking place through proposals, which I find inefficient.
- Yes 92.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 89.8M ₳ Rationale
SIPO DRep Voting Rationale – Conditional YES
Governance Action: Net Change Limit of 300 Million ADA for Epochs 613–713SIPO votes YES on this proposal.
I consider this Net Change Limit (NCL) of 300 million ADA for Epochs 613–713 to be a reasonable and necessary first step toward fiscal stabilization under the new constitutional governance framework.
Cardano is entering a new phase where treasury management is no longer informal or socially coordinated, but constitutionally structured. In that context, establishing a clear, time-bound Net Change Limit provides predictability, discipline, and confidence. It signals that treasury spending will not expand without boundaries and that long-term sustainability is being taken seriously.
The proposed amount is grounded in the previous year’s treasury inflows (approximately 306.9 million ADA). Anchoring the NCL to historical inflow data reflects prudence and avoids excessive expansion beyond demonstrated capacity. From a fiscal discipline perspective, this is sound and defensible.
For these reasons, I support this proposal.
At the same time, my support should be understood as conditional in principle.
While a fixed NCL is appropriate as a stabilization mechanism in this early phase of constitutional governance, I believe that over the longer term Cardano should evolve toward a more adaptive fiscal model.
A purely static NCL has limitations:
• It does not respond to significant ADA price fluctuations.
• It does not adjust to changes in treasury reserves.
• It may constrain strategic investment during strong growth cycles.
• It may expose the treasury to disproportionate drawdowns during severe downturns.In other words, a fixed cap provides clarity, but not flexibility.
As governance matures, I believe Cardano should explore a dynamic NCL framework that takes into account measurable indicators such as:
• Treasury balance levels
• Annual treasury inflows
• ADA market conditions
• Volatility and macroeconomic contextSuch a framework should remain transparent, simple, and constitutionally grounded, but allow fiscal policy to operate as a stabilizing mechanism rather than a rigid constraint.
My support for this proposal reflects the following principles:
1. Fiscal discipline comes first. Stability is a prerequisite for credible governance.
2. Simplicity is appropriate at this stage. We should not over-engineer mechanisms before the community gains operational experience.
3. Evolution is necessary. Static rules should not become permanent limitations if better, more adaptive designs are available in the future.Therefore, SIPO votes YES to establish the 300 million ADA Net Change Limit for Epochs 613–713 as a foundational measure of fiscal responsibility.
At the same time, I encourage continued discussion and research into adaptive NCL models for future periods. Governance is not a one-time design; it is an evolving system.
This vote reflects support for stability today and thoughtful evolution tomorrow.
— SIPO DRep
⸻
SIPO DRep 投票理由 – 条件付き YES
ガバナンスアクション：Epoch 613–713 における 3億ADA の Net Change LimitSIPOは本提案に対し、YES を投じます。
Epoch 613〜713 における Net Change Limit（NCL）を 3億ADA に設定する本提案は、新しい憲法体制下における財政安定化の第一段階として、合理的かつ必要な措置であると考えています。
カルダノは現在、トレジャリー管理を「慣習」や「合意形成」に頼る段階から、「憲法に基づく制度設計」へと移行しています。その中で、一定期間の純変動上限を明確に定めることは、予見可能性と財政規律を確保し、エコシステム全体の信頼性を高める意味があります。
今回の上限額は、2025年のトレジャリー流入総額（約3億690万ADA）を基準に設定されています。過去の実績に基づく保守的な設計であり、財政拡張を抑制する観点からも妥当であると判断しています。
以上の理由から、SIPOは本提案を支持します。
ただし、この支持は「原則的に条件付き」であることを明確にしておきたいと思います。
固定型のNCLは、制度初期段階における安定化装置としては有効ですが、長期的には限界も存在します。
たとえば：
・ADA価格が大きく変動した場合に自動調整が働かない
・トレジャリー残高の増減を反映できない
・強気相場における戦略的投資機会を制限する可能性
・弱気相場において実質的な負担が拡大する可能性つまり、固定値は明快ですが、柔軟性には欠けます。
将来的には、市場状況・トレジャリー残高・年間流入額・ボラティリティなどを適切に反映する動的NCL設計への進化を検討すべきだと考えています。
もちろん、その際には：
・透明であること
・理解可能であること
・過度に複雑化しないこと
・憲法的整合性を保つことが前提条件になります。
SIPOの立場は以下の三点に基づいています。
1. まずは財政規律を確立することが最優先である。
2. 制度初期段階ではシンプルな設計が適している。
3. しかし制度は固定化せず、成熟とともに進化すべきである。よって、SIPOは財政責任の第一歩として本提案にYESを投じます。
同時に、次期NCL設計に向けて、より適応的なモデルについての建設的議論が進むことを期待しています。
ガバナンスは完成形ではなく、進化するプロセスです。
本投票は、「今日の安定」と「明日の進化」の両立を意図した判断です。
— SIPO DRep
- Yes 89.3M ₳ Rationale
Voting "YES" on this NCL as it represents an improvement in terms of being less than the prior NCL and is described as being at least under the previous annual inflows.
- Yes 77.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 74.7M ₳ No rationale
- No 71.3M ₳ Rationale
I am voting NO. 300M ADA is still excessive. We must enforce strict fiscal discipline based on minimal treasury inflows. I advocate for a reduced limit of 200-250M ADA to force prioritization. After our initial heavy spending to plug gaps, we must now grow the treasury, not deplete it.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting NO. A 300M ADA limit is still excessive. We must enforce strict fiscal discipline based on conservative, minimal inflow projections.
I advocate for a reduced Net Change Limit in the region of 200-250M ADA. This would force prioritization and ensure we operate within our means. Especially after our recent initial spending to plug significant infrastructure gaps, we should be growing the treasury rather than depleting it.
- No 68M ₳ Rationale
I have reconsidered my previous position regarding the appropriate scale of the Net Change Limit. Upon further reflection, I have become increasingly concerned about the current level of governance maturity within the ecosystem.
At this stage, mechanisms for measuring the effectiveness, cost-efficiency, and long-term impact of treasury expenditures are not yet sufficiently robust. In addition, governance structures are still evolving, and risks related to influence concentration and de facto centralization cannot be ignored.
Expanding or maintaining a relatively large Net Change Limit under these conditions may expose the treasury to structural and governance risk. Until stronger accountability frameworks and a more mature decentralized governance culture are firmly established, a more conservative fiscal approach would be prudent.
For these reasons, I vote against this proposal.
僕は、Net Change Limit（NCL）の適切な規模について、これまでの自らの立場を再考しました。改めて熟考する中で、現在のエコシステムにおけるガバナンスの成熟度について、より強い懸念を抱くようになりました。
現時点では、トレジャリー支出の有効性、費用対効果、そして長期的な影響を測定する仕組みは、いまだ十分に確立されているとは言えません。加えて、ガバナンス体制そのものも発展途上にあり、影響力の集中や事実上の中央集権化といったリスクを無視することはできません。
このような状況下で、比較的大きなNet Change Limitを拡大または維持することは、トレジャリーに構造的・制度的なリスクをもたらす可能性があります。より強固な説明責任の枠組みと、成熟した分散型ガバナンス文化が確立されるまでは、より慎重な財政姿勢を取ることが妥当であると考えます。
以上の理由により、本提案には反対します。
- Yes 65.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 62.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 53.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 50.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 49.8M ₳ Rationale
I prefer not to evaluate future proposals solely based on whether they fit within the total budget. Each proposal should be judged individually on its quality, impact, and value for money. A higher budget of 350M provides more flexibility and reduces the risk of rejecting strong proposals just because of an arbitrary limit, so I'm voting No for 300M.
- No 49.7M ₳ Rationale
I am voting No for Net Change Limit for E613 to 713. Cardano approved extremely big budget for 2025 and its outcome hasn't reviewed yet. To respect decentralisation of our ecosystem, I basically opposed to big spending from treasury for specific entities. I recommend community for lowering it to 200M ADA or less. [Japanese version follows] ネットチェンジリミットをE613から713に変更するガバナンスアクションに対し、反対票を投じます。Cardanoは2025年に非常に大きな予算を承認しましたが、その結果はまだ検証されていません。エコシステムの分散化を尊重する観点から、私は基本的に特定のエンティティに対する財務からの大規模な支出に反対します。コミュニティに対し、2億ADA以下に引き下げることを提案します。
- No 48.4M ₳ Rationale
Without transparent reporting and analysis of Budget 2025, Cardano should not approve budget for 2026.
- Abstain 42.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 40M ₳ Rationale
I am changing my vote because I just realized the 350million proposal didn't go through & we are delaying the budget process a lot.
- Yes 38.1M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 34.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 31M ₳ Rationale
I support the establishment of a Net Change Limit as a necessary fiscal guardrail. However, given the current level of ADA price volatility and the evolving nature of on-chain governance, I believe it would be prudent to incorporate a mid-term review mechanism. I would support this proposal if it included a formal commitment to reassess and, if necessary, adjust the NCL halfway through the proposed period (for example, after 6–12 months). This would preserve predictability while maintaining fiscal flexibility in changing market conditions.
- Yes 30.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 29.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 28.2M ₳ Rationale
After careful consideration I have chosen to vote YES on this NCL of 300M ADA for 100 epochs (505 days). The reserve is dwindling and emissions have decreased since last year, the price of ADA currently at $0.28 gives us very little leverage against actual costs measured in USD, and the 2030 Vision/Strategy is not quite refined enough that I feel comfortable spending 350M ADA without a more promising ROI. For these reasons I am voting YES on this lower 300M ADA proposal in hopes that it passes in lieu of the higher one.
- Yes 27.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 26.1M ₳ Rationale
There needs to be a clean NCL on the table and we need it before the next fiscal year starts, this NCl does that and allows for much needed infra to paid for and built
- Yes 25.9M ₳ Rationale
350M is way to much. 300M is enough, but the allocation is key. We can always expand if necessary, but focus should be put on generating value for the chain, e.g. through apps or improved security and/or scalability.
- No 22.7M ₳ Rationale
Already voted yes on 350. Convinced we should spend more than that.
- Yes 22M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 22M ₳ Rationale
I agree.
- Yes 21.3M ₳ Rationale
As a DRep, I vote YES on this Info Action.
Setting the Net Change Limit at 300 million ADA for Epochs 613–713 reflects a prudent and measured approach to treasury management, given recent inflow data and current market conditions. Starting with a lower NCL helps signal fiscal discipline while preserving flexibility for well-justified investments.
The NCL is not fixed and can be adjusted if stronger needs or improved conditions arise. Approving this proposal establishes a responsible baseline for the upcoming budget cycle and allows future decisions to be made with clearer data and context.
- Abstain 21.2M ₳ Rationale
I am voting ABSTAIN on the governance action to set a “Net Change Limit of 300 Million ADA for Epochs 613–713” (gov_action1wwjwkg2g0qwr0mehey9r8gwn6qz3r28wl6wdl2s75kfmpy8j87tqqtft9tp).
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.
- Yes 21.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 21.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 20.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 18.2M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 17.1M ₳ Rationale
Net Change Limit of 300 Million ADA for Epochs 613–713
- Yes 16.7M ₳ Rationale
At this stage, we believe it is important that some NCL is approved, even if it is more defensive. A conservative starting point is better than delay or uncertainty, and the NCL can always be increased later if there is a strong reason to do so.
Before raising the ceiling, the ecosystem should first evaluate how effective the previous year’s funded projects and initiatives actually were. Cardanians is reviewing that in parallel and would be open to supporting a higher NCL later if the data justifies it, especially if weaker ADA/USD conditions materially reduce real purchasing power.
For now, 300M ADA is a prudent initial ceiling that keeps the process moving while reserving any future increase for an evidence-based case.
- Yes 16.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 14.1M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 13.3M ₳ Rationale
RCADA recognizes the importance of establishing a Net Change Limit (NCL) as a core fiscal guardrail within Cardano’s treasury governance framework. Clear limits on treasury outflows help ensure responsible stewardship of community resources and contribute to the long-term sustainability and stability of the ecosystem.
The proposed limit of 300 million ADA is broadly consistent with the reported treasury inflows of approximately 306.9 million ADA during 2025, suggesting an intent to align potential treasury spending with historical inflow levels. From a fiscal discipline perspective, this approach is reasonable and reflects an effort to maintain a sustainable balance between ecosystem investment and treasury preservation.
However, RCADA is choosing to abstain from this proposal due to concerns regarding the quality and completeness of the governance submission. Compared to earlier Net Change Limit proposals, this action provides limited supporting analysis, references, or methodological transparency regarding the treasury inflow calculations used to justify the proposed limit. Governance parameters that may influence more than a year of potential treasury spending should ideally be supported by clearer data sources, methodology, and contextual analysis so that DReps and the broader community can fully evaluate the proposal.
RCADA also notes that recent market conditions — including a significant decline in ADA’s price since the previous NCL discussions — introduce additional uncertainty regarding the real-world purchasing power of treasury allocations. While the NCL represents a ceiling rather than a spending commitment, macroeconomic conditions reinforce the importance of careful treasury governance and well-supported proposals when setting fiscal parameters of this scale.
RCADA’s abstention should therefore not be interpreted as opposition to the concept of a 300 million ADA Net Change Limit, but rather as a signal that governance actions of this significance should meet a higher standard of documentation and analytical support.
RCADA encourages future proposals establishing treasury governance parameters to include clearer supporting data, references, and treasury modeling to strengthen transparency and community confidence in the decision-making process.
For these reasons, RCADA votes ABSTAIN.
RCADA's full vote assessment can be found here: "https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/.
- Yes 12.8M ₳ Rationale
I am voting YES on governance action 73a4eb2148781c37ef37c90a33a1d3d00511a8eefe9cdfaa1ea593b090f23f96, which sets the net change limit to 300 million ADA. This represents a trending decrease in expenditures, is less than the total inflow of funds, while still representing aggressive investment in our ecosystem.
You can find a larger writeup of my beliefs and values here.
- No 12.2M ₳ Rationale
As Wada DRep, we vote No on the proposed Net Change Limit of 300 Million ADA for Epochs 613–713.
Our position is not rooted in opposition to fiscal discipline. In fact, we acknowledge that anchoring the NCL to realized treasury inflows, specifically the 306,940,195 ADA recorded between Epochs 532 and 604, reflects a conservative and defensible methodology. However, we have already pledged our support to the Net Change Limit framework proposed by the Cardano Budget Committee, which we consider more structurally complete and better aligned with the operational realities of this funding cycle.The Budget Committee’s version not only referenced realized inflows but also incorporated previously approved but undrawn allocations, most notably the 50M ADA Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget, thereby preserving continuity with prior DRep decisions. By contrast, the 300M proposal does not address these latent commitments, does not provide financial modeling artifacts, and does not include supporting data links, scenario analysis, or forward-looking projections. While numerically conservative, it lacks the fiscal architecture necessary for a high-confidence governance instrument of this magnitude.