Set 2025 Net Change Limit of 300M ADA, 2026 Net Change Limit of 250M ADA
224 DReps voted · 61 with a rationale · 11 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No13.3M ₳Rationale
After reviewing the rationale, related governance metadata, community commentary and constitutional implications, I am voting No on this action.
Let me start by saying that I appreciate the intent behind this proposal. It takes a more conservative approach than the previous 350 million ADA proposal and aligns the 2025 limit with estimated treasury inflows. On the surface, this is a positive move toward preserving the treasury’s long-term sustainability. However, several key issues prevent me from supporting the proposal in its current form.
First, the proposal sets a full-year limit despite being introduced in mid-March, with the vote running through April. By the time any withdrawals are assessed against it, we will be nearly halfway into the year. A 300 million ADA ceiling applied retroactively or over a compressed timeframe creates the risk of rushed spending or poor allocation simply to “use” the cap, which undermines responsible treasury governance.
Second, the proposal also sets a limit for 2026, which I believe is premature. While I understand the desire for predictability, locking in a fixed cap a full year in advance reduces our ability to adapt to evolving conditions. Even if the 250 million number is reasonable, we should be making that decision with the benefit of 2025’s learnings, not in advance of them.
Third—and most significantly—this proposal continues to suffer from lack of definitional clarity. As raised by fellow DRep Martin Lang and others, the term “Net Change Limit” is not yet precisely defined in practice. Is it the total sum of treasury withdrawals? Is it the delta between starting and ending treasury balances? Does it account for inflows from protocol rewards? And when exactly does the “year” begin in operational terms? Without resolving these foundational questions, we risk implementing a rule that is both unenforceable and open to interpretation—which weakens governance, not strengthens it.
Additionally, I share the constitutional concerns raised by the Cardano Atlantic Council. The proposal sets its own ratification threshold at 67%, while the Constitution clearly specifies that NCL proposals require only a majority (>50%) of active voting stake. Regardless of intention, changing procedural thresholds outside of a formal amendment process risks undermining the constitutional order we've just established. Governance must lead by example in following its own rules.
To summarize, while I support the direction of this proposal in terms of fiscal restraint and decentralization, I cannot support its current form. It asks for too much commitment too soon, lacks clarity in key areas and doesn’t comply with the constitutional threshold process. I would welcome a revised submission that:
1_Applies a prorated or adjusted cap for the remainder of 2025,
2_Defers the 2026 limit for a future vote,
3_Clearly defines what the NCL is—with accounting specifics and operational boundaries,
4_Aligns fully with constitutional voting requirements.
Voltaire’s success depends on precision, transparency and adherence to shared rules. I believe Cardano can lead in decentralized treasury governance, but we must get these foundational elements right. - No12.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes12.1M ₳Rationale
The proposed Net Change Limit (NCL) of 300 million ADA for 2025 and 250 million ADA for 2026 reflects a prudent approach to managing Cardano’s fiscal policies, which is essential for ensuring the long-term sustainability and development of the blockchain. Given the treasury inflows of approximately 345 million ADA in 2024, with projections indicating a 300 million ADA inflow for 2025, it is sensible to adopt a conservative spending limit that aligns with these figures.
Setting a lower NCL than the total expected inflow allows us to preserve a portion of the treasury’s resources, specifically 44 million ADA in 2025 and 50 million ADA in 2026. This savings approach is not merely about withholding funds but rather about fostering a culture of prioritized and responsible spending. It ensures that funds are available for critical projects that enhance Cardano’s infrastructure and capabilities, thus positioning it as a leading blockchain technology.
Moreover, establishing such fiscal constraints encourages a more strategic allocation of resources. It compels project proponents and the community to prioritize initiatives with the highest potential impact and value for the Cardano ecosystem. This is particularly pertinent in light of the current budget draft by Intersect, which demands a significant portion of the NCL—265M. By advocating for a reduction in Intersect’s budget to a level that maintains operational efficacy while freeing up funds for other valuable community projects, we promote a balanced and inclusive fiscal environment.
As a conservative delegate representative, we believe this proposal serves the best interest of the community. It balances the need for robust development and innovation with the imperative of maintaining a healthy fiscal reserve. This approach not only supports ongoing and future technological advancements but also upholds the integrity and stability of the Cardano treasury. This proposal, therefore, is not just about setting limits; it's about ensuring that every ADA spent is an investment into the secure, sustainable, and strategic growth of Cardano, making it the most robust blockchain platform for years to come.
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.8M ₳No rationale
- No8.8M ₳Rationale
このガバナンスアクションでは2025年と2026年の純変動上限をまとめて設定する形になっていますが、私は2026年分については来年の状況を見てから決める方がよいと考えています。2025年分を決めること自体には同意しますが、複数年を一括で決定するのは時期尚早だと思うため、本ガバナンスアクションには反対します。\n\nThis governance action sets Net Change Limits for both 2025 and 2026, but I believe the 2026 limit should be decided next year based on the circumstances at that time. While I support defining the 2025 limit, I think it’s too early to lock in multiple years at once, so I do not support this governance action.
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- No7.6M ₳Rationale
While there seem to be some open questions surrounding the definition of NCL in the Cardano constitution, I will sidestep that issue here.
The reason why I am voting against the proposed governance action is because it wishes to set a Net Change Limit for two years in one swoop.
This not only weakens the chances for the motion to pass, but it also makes it less clear what needs to be corrected if the motion fails.
Future proposers should probably focus on proposing a Net Change Limit for one year, due to the slow nature of decentralized governance.
Finally, I was not convinced by the motion that there is an absolute need to set an NCL for 2026 this early, as it is March 2025. A lot can happen between now and 2026, setting a 2026 limit seems premature - hence a bad precedent.
I welcome the attempt by the proposers to highlight a need for conservative spending, by roughly limiting the NCL to the volume of of Cardano annual treasury inflows in 2025 and 2026. - No7.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.4M ₳No rationale
- No5.9M ₳Rationale
I will be voting no for a few reasons. The NCL limit at 300M ADA for 2025 is within personally what I would like to approve, however this proposal also sets expectations for a 2026 NCL which I do not want to be in support of at this time. For largely this reason, I will be voting no. However, it's important to note that the supporting documents, particularly the NCL model, is not openly available to access and can be edited. This is not a problem per say, but it's not an ideal way to structure such an important proposal having to vote on something that isn't immutable - not to mention accessibility isn't currently available (no longer have permissions). Lastly, verbiage around "we" and "drama" raises some concerns where that commentary could have just been excluded altogether - and focused on the NCL only. The "we" does not matter here in an open voting system.
- NoChanged5.4M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
After evaluating this governance action, I would vote "Yes" because the proposed Net Change Limits of 300M ADA for 2025 and 250M ADA for 2026 align conservatively with forecasted treasury inflows, ensuring sustainable spending while allowing flexibility for future adjustments if higher limits are deemed necessary. To improve this Info Action, I suggest including a clear mechanism or timeline for reviewing and adjusting the Net Change Limit mid-period if unexpected changes in treasury inflows or ecosystem needs arise, enhancing adaptability. For consideration, we (DReps should weigh whether the fixed ADA amounts might limit responsiveness to ADA’s price volatility, potentially justifying a supplementary percentage-based approach in future proposals to better account for economic fluctuations.
- Yes4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.7M ₳No rationale
- No4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳No rationale
- No4.1M ₳No rationale
- No4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese] Optamos por votar "Não" nesta ação de governança, pois acreditamos que é mais inteligente tratar o limite anual de gastos do orçamento ano a ano, de forma separada e no momento oportuno, utilizando o aprendizado e maturidade adquirido referente ao ano anterior.
[English]
We chose to vote "No" on this governance action because we believe it is wiser to address the annual budget spending cap on a year-by-year basis, separately and at the appropriate time, making use of the insights and maturity gained from the previous year.
- Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.8M ₳Rationale
The treasury should be handled with extreme care: a stringent Net Change Limit (NCL) will enforce rigorous evaluation funding proposals.
We believe that this is very positive for the ecosystem as it will protect its most important asset: ADA.
We agree that the NCL should not be a % but an absolute value in ADA for now: it will make it simple, readable and predictable.
- No3.7M ₳No rationale
- No3.4M ₳No rationale
- No3.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes3M ₳No rationale
- Abstain3M ₳No rationale
- No2.8M ₳No rationale
- No2.8M ₳Rationale
Please provide some research and math proving that it is necessary, effective, and healthy for the network and users.
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- No2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
DRepとして「Yes」投票する理由
私はDRepとして、本提案に賛成（Yes）票を投じます。その理由は、Net Change Limit（NCL）を適切に定めることが、カルダノの財務の透明性・持続可能性・予測可能性を高めるうえで極めて重要だからです。2025年のNCLを300M ADAとする根拠は、同年のトレジャリー予測収入が300M ADAであるという見積もりに基づいており、保守的かつ健全な財政運営を目指す上で適切と判断できます。
また、収入と同額を支出上限とするこの方針は、トレジャリーの残高維持を図りながらも、エコシステム成長のための戦略的支出を可能にする点で、バランスの取れたアプローチです。万が一、予想より収入が増加した場合でも、将来にわたる持続的支出の基盤となる余剰が残されます。さらに、将来の上限変更の余地も明記されており、柔軟性も担保されています。このようなガバナンスプロセスは、カルダノの成熟に不可欠であり、私は積極的に支持します。
Reason for Voting “Yes” as a DRep
As a DRep, I will vote “Yes” on this proposal. Setting an appropriate Net Change Limit (NCL) is crucial for enhancing Cardano’s transparency, sustainability, and predictability in treasury management. The 300M ADA NCL for 2025 is justified by forecasted treasury inflows of 300M ADA, making it a conservative and sound fiscal policy.
This spending cap, equal to projected inflows, ensures treasury balance while enabling strategic ecosystem investments—a balanced approach. Surpluses, if inflows exceed forecasts, will secure future spending. As the proposal allows future adjustments, it maintains flexibility. I actively support this governance process, essential for Cardano’s growth. - Yes2.4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.3M ₳No rationale
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- No2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- No1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
We support this proposal because it has been reviewed by the community, and the majority agree with the proposed Net Change Limit. Establishing this limit ensures transparency, accountability, and the sustainability of Cardano’s treasury.
Additionally, this proposal aligns with Article IV of the Cardano Constitution and the Treasury Withdrawal Guardrails, ensuring responsible spending while facilitating the strategic growth of the ecosystem.
- YesChanged1.8M ₳Rationale
Although 300k seems high to me, I think it important not to hold up the ability for Cardno budget requests. I could see there maybe being an emergency, like a security issue, where having a buffer of funds may be helpful.
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.6M ₳Rationale
Linking proposal to google docs or other centralized hosting is not the way to do it.