Reduce minPoolCost to 75 ada and increase Plutus Memory Limits (Part 2)
Discussed in the Governance Review for epochs 650 to 652.
195 DReps voted · 71 with a rationale · 6 changed their vote · 1 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 5 to yes, 1 to no, together voting with 875.7M ₳ of voting power.
Voting concentration
7 of 195 DReps cast half of the voted power.
Largest voter 12.6%, top 5 combined 43.9% of 3.8B ₳ voted.
The 33 largest voters together held as much voting power as the 67.0% threshold required in yes votes.
- Yes182.7K ₳No rationale
- No169.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes166.5K ₳Rationale
I am voting Yes on this proposal.
I believe reducing minPoolCost from 170 ADA to 75 ADA is a reasonable and necessary stopgap while Cardano works toward a better long-term solution based on a proportional or variable minimum pool cost.
The economics that originally justified a relatively high fixed minPoolCost have changed significantly. Block rewards have continued to decline, and a fixed 170 ADA cost now represents a disproportionately large percentage of the rewards earned by small pools that may only produce one or two blocks in an epoch. That directly reduces the return available to their delegators and makes it more difficult for smaller independent pools to compete with large, consistently producing operators.
I also think the experience since the previous reduction from 340 ADA to 170 ADA is important. We did not see the ecosystem collapse into a universal race to the minimum fee. Pool operators continued to price their services differently, while the lower floor gave smaller pools additional flexibility when they needed it. Reducing the minimum to 75 ADA likewise does not require any operator to charge 75 ADA; it simply gives them the ability to do so.
I am also persuaded by the updated incentive analysis suggesting that a large fixed minimum cost is not necessarily an effective Sybil deterrent and may actually benefit large operators capable of splitting stake among multiple pools and collecting the fixed fee repeatedly.
Ultimately, however, I do not believe that repeatedly choosing a new fixed ADA value is the ideal long-term solution. A proportional minPoolMargin, or another mechanism that allows the minimum cost to scale with pool rewards and network economics, makes substantially more sense to me than attempting to periodically recalibrate a static number. I therefore view 75 ADA as an appropriate intermediate step while that more complete solution is developed and implemented.
I also support completing the previously evaluated increase to the Plutus memory limits included in this action. This is the second step of the planned 25% increase, has already undergone technical review and testnet evaluation, and provides additional execution headroom for Plutus applications without changing the fundamental capacity relationship between transaction and block limits.
For those reasons, I support the proposal as a practical improvement to the current reward structure and network capacity while Cardano continues working toward a more durable solution for stake pool economics.
- Yes157.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes149.8K ₳Rationale
I support this action primarily because lowering minPoolCost to 75 ADA gives small pools a better chance to remain competitive and viable as rewards continue to decline. While I’m not a fan of bundling two separate changes, I see no material downside to the package as proposed.
- Yes142.9K ₳No rationale
- Abstain138.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes126.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes124.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes115.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes107.4K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged95.8K ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain1mo agoSuperseded
- Yes93.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes92.1K ₳Rationale
I voted yes because the proposal supports smaller stake pools by lowering the minimum pool cost and gives DApps more capacity by increasing Plutus memory limits. I believe both changes help improve Cardano’s decentralization, usability, and overall network efficiency. As a stake pool opperator Parad i see fist hand how hard it is top get pledge when small and small stake pools are good for the ecosystem.
- Abstain90.6K ₳Rationale
English
ABSTAIN
This is a technical decision, and the low level of SPO participation in this vote deserves consideration. The absence of broader support from stake pool operators for a relevant technical update reduces my confidence in taking a definitive position at this stage.
I also consider the bundling of two independent changes — the reduction of
minPoolCostand the increase in Plutus memory limits — into a single Governance Action to be problematic. This prevents separate evaluation and voting on issues with distinct impacts, justifications, and risks.Considering the possibility that the action may be resubmitted if the required thresholds are not reached, I prefer to abstain and wait for broader SPO participation, additional information, and clearer technical signaling before taking a conclusive position.
Português
ABSTAIN
Esta é uma decisão de natureza técnica, e a baixa participação dos SPOs nesta votação merece consideração. A ausência de apoio mais amplo dos operadores para uma atualização técnica relevante reduz minha confiança para tomar uma posição definitiva neste momento.
Também considero problemático o bundling de duas alterações independentes — a redução do
minPoolCoste o aumento dos limites de memória Plutus — em uma única Governance Action. Isso impede uma avaliação e um voto separados sobre questões que possuem impactos, justificativas e riscos distintos.Considerando a possibilidade de uma nova submissão caso os thresholds necessários não sejam atingidos, prefiro me abster e aguardar maior participação dos SPOs, mais informações e uma sinalização técnica mais clara antes de tomar uma decisão conclusiva.
- Yes85.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes85.6K ₳Rationale
EN — iFly (SWADA) votes YES on reducing minPoolCost from 170 to 75 ada and raising the Plutus memory limits.
DECLARED INTEREST: I operate the SWADA stake pool, which sits at the minPoolCost floor. This change directly lowers my own pool's fixed cost. I disclose that rather than leave it unstated, and readers should weigh my vote accordingly.
On the merits: as reserve-funded rewards decline, a 170 ada fixed fee consumes a punishing share of a small pool's rewards — the single-block-pool delegator penalty is already around 53% and is projected toward 100% by roughly epoch 758. IO Research has reversed its earlier position and now holds that a high floor helps large operators fragment stake into Sybil pools rather than deterring them. A healthy long tail of small, independent pools is one of my stated priorities as a DRep, and this change supports it.
Reservations: the proposal bundles two unrelated changes into a single yes/no vote, and a lower floor should arguably be paired with a minPoolMargin and an increase in k to prevent a fee race to the bottom. I would support those as follow-ups. I vote YES.
SV — iFly (SWADA) röstar JA på att sänka minPoolCost från 170 till 75 ada och höja Plutus-minnesgränserna.
REDOVISAT INTRESSE: Jag driver stakepoolen SWADA, som ligger på minPoolCost-golvet. Ändringen sänker direkt min egen pools fasta kostnad. Jag redovisar detta i stället för att lämna det osagt, och läsare bör väga min röst därefter.
I sak: när de reservfinansierade belöningarna minskar tar en fast avgift på 170 ada en orimligt stor andel av en liten pools belöningar — straffet för delegerare i en pool som gör ett block är redan runt 53% och beräknas nå 100% omkring epok 758. IO Research har ändrat sin tidigare hållning och menar nu att ett högt golv hjälper stora operatörer att splittra stake i Sybil-pooler snarare än att avskräcka dem. En sund lång svans av små, oberoende pooler är en av mina uttalade prioriteringar som DRep, och denna ändring stödjer den.
Invändningar: förslaget paketerar två orelaterade ändringar i en enda ja/nej-röst, och ett lägre golv borde rimligen kombineras med en minPoolMargin och en höjning av k för att förhindra en priskrig nedåt. Jag skulle stödja detta som uppföljning. Jag röstar JA. - Yes78K ₳No rationale
- Yes74.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes63.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes62.7K ₳Rationale
Reducing minPoolCost to 75 ada eases a fixed fee that disproportionately penalises small pools, helping them stay competitive. Plutus memory increases are modest, incremental steps that give dApp developers more headroom.
- Yes56.4K ₳Rationale
I vote Yes for this proposal intended to Adjust the minpool Cost and PLUTUS memory limits. ~Lourde Ouroborus Imperator Aeternalis ~
- Yes56.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes53.1K ₳Rationale
Anything that lowers the barrier to entry in a blockchain ecosystem should ultimately help drive adoption, right? I'm in favor of the minPoolCost decrease from 170 ada to 75 ada.
- Yes45.3K ₳No rationale
- Abstain35.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes31.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes26.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes19.7K ₳Rationale
I'm genuinely in favor of what this does — it helps small pool operators stay viable and gives developers more room to actually build things on-chain. Both of those matter to me.
I wanted to hear directly from the people this affects most before voting on their economics, so I went and read what pool operators are actually saying to each other about it. It's a real debate — some want the flexibility to price lower and compete, others worry about a race to the bottom on quality. Nobody's ignoring this, they're just split, which is different from what I was worried about.
What settles it for me: this doesn't force anyone's hand. It just lowers the floor — pools that want to keep charging what they charge today can keep doing exactly that. And the problem it's solving is real and getting worse on a clock, not hypothetical. This went through the proper process too, not a side deal.
Voting yes.
- Yes15.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes15.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes14.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes9.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes9K ₳No rationale
- NoChanged6.8K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
- Yes3.6K ₳No rationale
- No3.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes688.8 ₳No rationale
- Abstain293.8 ₳No rationale
- Yes167.1 ₳No rationale
- Yes10.8 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale