Set 2025 Net Change Limit of 300M ADA, 2026 Net Change Limit of 250M ADA
224 DReps voted · 66 with a rationale · 4 changed their vote · 5 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 2 to yes, 2 to no, together voting with 51.6M ₳ of voting power.
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
I'm voting YES on setting the Net Change Limit to 300M ADA for 2025 and 250M ADA for 2026. Below, I'll briefly explain my reasoning in a way that's easy to understand, balanced, and respectful to everyone involved.
Why YES?
Responsible Spending: Approving a clear spending limit ensures we only use funds that come into the treasury, avoiding the risk of rapidly draining resources we've carefully built up over time. It's similar to spending only what you earn, which helps keep finances healthy for the long term.
Financial Stability: This approach keeps our reserves intact, ensuring that we always have resources available to support important and worthwhile projects in the future. It’s like maintaining savings for unexpected or valuable opportunities rather than spending it all at once.
Clear Boundaries: Setting explicit limits provides clarity for everyone involved. It makes future budget decisions easier, clearer, and more transparent.
Possible Concerns & Counterpoints
Centralization Concerns: Some are concerned that Intersect or any specific organization might gain too much control over how funds are distributed. This is a fair concern—central control can create inefficiencies or lead to decisions that don't align with the broader community's interests. I acknowledge this worry and share the view that future allocations must remain transparent, decentralized, and closely monitored.
Fear of Bureaucracy: There's also a concern about overly complex procedures that might slow down decision-making or reduce transparency. It's important that future processes remain simple, clear, and easy to follow for everyone involved.
Balanced Perspective
This YES vote doesn't mean automatic trust in any organization; rather, it's a practical first step toward responsible financial management. It sets a sensible boundary for spending, ensuring funds are used thoughtfully and sustainably. Future proposals on specific budget items must still undergo careful review, transparent discussion, and broad community agreement.
To those voting NO or having doubts: your concerns about centralization, transparency, or spending oversight are valid and important. My YES vote aligns closely with these principles, aiming to protect our treasury and ensure financial responsibility for the benefit of the entire Cardano community.
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
Rationale for Voting Yes on the 2025-2026 NCL Info Action Proposal
Recognition of Effort
I want to recognize the efforts of those who prepared this Info-Action under tight time constraints and with minimal precedent to guide them.
This acknowledgment underpins my pragmatic support for the proposal, despite its shortcomings.Unclear Definition of NCL Withdrawal Amount
The Net Change Limit (NCL) is not clearly defined in either the Cardano constitution or the proposal, diverging from the community’s emerging understanding of a "net change limit".
While this lack of clarity is significant, it does not warrant rejecting the proposal.Constitutionality of Threshold
The proposal specifies a 67% threshold of the active voting stake to pass.
This raises a question of the constitution's guardrail TREASURY-01a intent for it leaves unclear whether the "threshold" value of 50% is an intrinsic part of the guardrail’s identity or merely part of a mechanism to establish if the NCL proposal is agreed.
Specifically, does 'TREASURY-01a' mean an NCL requires approval by more than 50% of the active voting stake, with the threshold as a core part of the guardrail? Or does it imply the NCL must exceed a standalone threshold of at least 50%, with the proposal’s support measured against it in a separate step to confirm agreement?".
If the constitution's 50% threshold is intrinsic to the guardrail, attempting to change the threshold to 67% could be deemed unconstitutional. However, if the guardrail is a standalone benchmark and its conditions are met the proposal is constitutional and the approval process continues. If the proposal does not garner approval exceeding the proposer's threshold of 67% the proposal cannot be agreed. I believe allowing a threshold above 50% enhances governance rigor and support proposers setting it, as they can set the voting period. However, enabling this functionality would require amending the constitution, updating ledger rules, and revising voting tools. Thus, I accept that the vote must exceed only 50% to agree an NCL.Immutability of Supporting Documents
The ability to edit supporting documents after approval poses a significant risk, potentially undermining the proposal’s integrity.
This issue requires attention from the Constitutional Committee to enforce immutability and maintain trust in the process.Multi-Year Scope Concern
Given the current maturity of Cardano’s governance, a single-year budget scope might be more appropriate, with a new NCL proposal potentially superseding this proposal before 2026. However, the delay in finalizing the 2025 budget makes the inclusion of 250 million ada as next year's NCL advantageous. It encourages discussions for the 2026 budget process earlier.
I would expect a new 2026 NCL limit proposal to supercede this info action but not before the end of 2025.Budget Period and Timeline Misalignment
With the 2025 first quarter past, the NCL’s full-year value of 300 million ADA raises concerns about potential back payments for prior work, which I oppose unless explicitly specified.
The NCL should proportionally reflect the remaining timeline being funded to ensure accuracy in resource allocation.Urgent Need for a 2025 Budget
A budget ceiling is urgently needed to cap treasury withdrawals for the 2025 roadmap and budget, including work on Ouroboros Leios and ZK technologies. This limit must balance treasury stability with the demand for improved performance to keep Cardano competitive. While the proposed 300 million ada maximum is high, it’s acceptable given current budget discussions.NCL Value Alignment and Budget Prudence
The NCL values (300 million ada for 2025 and 250 million for 2026) align reasonably with projected treasury inflows over the two-year period. I prefer budgets that maintain a surplus, especially given the current volatile cryptocurrency climate. A lower NCL for 2025, around 200 million ada, would reflect the nascent state of the budget process, reinforce prudent monetary policy and mitigate the negative effect on ada price by treasury withdrawls.
However, the pressing need for a budget decision supersedes my preference for a reduced value.Percentage based limits
Adopting percentage-based limits based on treasury inflows could enhance predictability and serve as guardrails to streamline future budget processes.Conclusion
Despite irregularities in constitutional requirements, and other concerns, the urgent need for a 2025 budget justifies overlooking these issues. While I’d favor a lower NCL value out of fiscal caution, the priority of passing a budget compels me to vote YES. The Constitutional Committee can address the issues raised here to refine governance practices.
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote YES because:
✅ The proposed Net Change Limits align with forecasted treasury inflows (≈300M ADA for 2025, ≈265M ADA for 2026), helping to keep expenditures within a safe range and ensuring responsible, sustainable treasury management.
✅ It does not hinder Intersect’s operating budget (~260M ADA) while leaving room for strategic investments that support ecosystem growth.
✅ Setting NCLs for both 2025 and 2026 helps prevent front-loading of spending into one year, promoting long-term, transparent budget planning.
✅ Approving a baseline NCL now avoids the worst-case scenario where no limit is set—something that could invalidate budget proposals under current governance rules.
✅ This is a community-led proposal, not initiated by founding entities, and demonstrates the growing maturity and self-governance of the Cardano community.💡 In the long term, I agree that the NCL should be defined as a percentage of treasury revenue to improve flexibility and predictability. However, at this stage, the proposed fixed amounts are a practical and necessary step to ensure budget continuity for 2025 and 2026.
Vietnamese
Tôi bỏ phiếu YES vì:
✅ Phù hợp với dự báo thu ngân sách kho bạc (≈300 triệu ADA năm 2025, ≈265 triệu ADA năm 2026), giúp giữ chi tiêu trong ngưỡng an toàn và đảm bảo quản lý tài chính bền vững.
✅ Không cản trở ngân sách hoạt động của Intersect (~260M ADA), đồng thời vẫn tạo dư địa cho các khoản đầu tư chiến lược nhằm mở rộng hệ sinh thái.
✅ Việc thiết lập NCL cho cả hai năm giúp tránh việc dồn chi tiêu vào năm 2025, khuyến khích lập kế hoạch ngân sách dài hạn và minh bạch.
✅ Việc phê duyệt NCL ngay bây giờ ngăn chặn kịch bản xấu nhất là không có giới hạn nào được thông qua – điều này có thể khiến các đề xuất ngân sách mất hiệu lực.
✅ Đây là đề xuất do cộng đồng khởi xướng, không đến từ các thực thể sáng lập, thể hiện rõ sự trưởng thành trong năng lực tự quản của cộng đồng Cardano.💡 Về dài hạn, tôi đồng ý rằng NCL nên được tính theo tỷ lệ phần trăm doanh thu kho bạc để tăng tính ổn định và dễ điều chỉnh. Tuy nhiên, trong giai đoạn hiện tại, phương án đề xuất là thực tế và cấp thiết để đảm bảo tiến độ ngân sách năm 2025–2026 không bị gián đoạn.
Japanese
私は以下の理由から、このガバナンス提案に賛成票（YES）を投じます：
✅ 提案されたNet Change Limit（NCL）は、予測されるトレジャリー収入（2025年：約3億ADA、2026年：約2億6500万ADA）と整合性があり、支出を安全な範囲に保ち、責任ある持続可能な財務管理を確保するものです。
✅ このNCLは、Intersectの予算（約2億6千万ADA）を妨げることなく、エコシステムの成長を支える戦略的投資の余地を残しています。
✅ 2025年と2026年の両年度にわたってNCLを設定することにより、支出の前倒しを防ぎ、長期的かつ透明性のある予算計画を促進します。
✅ NCLを今この段階で承認することで、何の制限も設定されない最悪の事態を回避できます。そうした場合、現行のガバナンスルールの下では予算提案が無効になる可能性があります。
✅ この提案はコミュニティ主導であり、創設団体によって提出されたものではありません。Cardanoコミュニティの自律性と成熟度の高まりを示しています。💡 長期的には、NCLはトレジャリー収入に対する割合（パーセンテージ）として定義されるべきだと考えています。これにより、柔軟性と予測可能性が高まります。ただし現時点では、今回提案されている固定額は、2025年および2026年の予算の継続性を確保するための、実用的かつ必要なステップです。
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
The Net Change Limit essentially represents a savings plan, which is important for ensuring fiscal responsibility. While I was always taught that 20% of my paycheck should go towards savings, I'm closer to 90% savings going into Ada. For now, we need to recognize that the Net Change Limit is a critical part of how we manage our funds. Since the Net Change Limit will be used when reviewing both budget actions and treasury withdrawal actions to ensure constitutionality, as required by Article IV of the Constitution and the Treasury Withdrawal Guardrails outlined in Appendix I, according to this, we cannot make any decisions until we reach an agreement. So, I’m going to be tough about this. I want to vote yes to get this passed, but eventually, we must stand firm in what we believe. Why must we spend so much now? This approach does not account for the extraordinary growth we expect by the end of this year, especially considering the potential for world adoption. In fact, we may see 10x returns this year, so why not save as much as possible? If I could choose the savings percentage, I would save as much as we can. Even a higher percentage, like 30% or 50%, seems reasonable when you consider the significant inflows expected over the coming years. The key point is that we should be focused on saving aggressively, given the market cap potential of Ada. The percentage of savings should be something we continue to discuss, as the long-term trajectory seems likely to outperform even the most optimistic projections. I think the right approach is not to pass something quickly just to get it done, because this is the first time we are ever setting this precedent!!! This is year 1. If we can always change it at any time, then why not do so when its necessary for us to spend more Ada than we set forth in the Net Change Limit. We should try to save as much as possible and then we can allow more spending when necessary. I would vote yes for 50% savings. I would vote yes to lower that percentage to 40% when the time comes this year. But the time might not come, so let us be conservative, let us be wise.
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
I voted NO on this proposal, even if I agree with the necessity of a Net Change Limit prior to budgeting. These are my main concerns:
- anonymity of the proposing Team does not foster good discussion;
- the proposal lacks strong research foundations;
- I personally would support a percentage-based Net Change Limit, rather than a fixed one.
Thank you to the proposers, respectfully.
- No1.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.1M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged1.1M ₳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
- YesRevoted1.1M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
I support the notion for a spending limit that is calculated as a percentage of the treasury income, say, 88%, instead of an absolute number that may not reflect the harsh reality in the future. I've voted Yes on this governance action proposal as a hard limit is still better than no limit and the cap is in line with previous levels. Development and progress must not be stopped.
- Yes969.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes966.3K ₳No rationale
- No929.9K ₳No rationale
- No920.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes884.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes870.3K ₳No rationale
- No866.3K ₳No rationale
- No829.9K ₳Rationale
Net change limit should be stated as a percentage of the balance of the treasury. Not as a lump sum that involves guessing how fast the treasury will grow in the future.
- No796.1K ₳Rationale
I believe that 300M ADA is significantly too high, especially given the nascent state of governance. I'd like to remain considerably more conservative until roadmaps are better defined and we've collectively demonstrated 'good sense' with our newfound governance capability.
- Yes792.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes765.6K ₳No rationale
- No760.2K ₳No rationale
- No742.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes637.5K ₳Rationale
While I believe these limits are high relative to the amount we should be spending from the treasury, I recognize that these are limits and they are sensible. They are less than the projected treasury inflow adding a buffer so ass to not over spend from the treasury.
- Yes636.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes627.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes614.8K ₳No rationale
- No604.7K ₳Rationale
I am voting no on this net change limit action because I believe it is too low of a treasury expenditure when faced with the current development requirements of the Cardano ecosystem. My primary focus in decision making currently revolves around increasing transactions in both volume and type. Cardano has not yet fully realized the original road map and still needs to fully implement Basho era advancements and upgrades. Current restrictions on speed and transaction volume are severely inhibiting adoption of the Cardano ecosystem and its overall marketshare of the crypto domain space. The Cardano treasury is projected to grow by about 320 million ADA in 2025, therefore setting a NCL of 300 million ADA is too conservative at this stage in Cardano's development.
- No582.9K ₳Rationale
SIDAN Lab will vote NO on this proposal—not because we disagree with its intent, but because we believe that including 2026 at this stage is premature.
We fully support the rationale behind setting a Net Change Limit (NCL) for 2025. Cardano’s governance and funding systems are still maturing, and setting a hard cap a full year in advance limits flexibility without the benefit of real-world learning from 2025.
We are also concerned that including a second year:
- Complicates implementation and creates constitutional uncertainty if multiple NCL proposals pass.
- May unintentionally lock us into figures that are no longer appropriate when 2026 planning begins.
We encourage a revised proposal that:
- Focuses on 2025 alone, based on current conditions and treasury projections.
- Defers the 2026 limit for a separate governance action, informed by actual data and ecosystem needs.
- Yes579.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes559.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes550.1K ₳No rationale
- No503.6K ₳Rationale
I unserstand the need for an NCL, but this is too much imo, especially this far gone into 2025. Also, proposal employs the problematic strategy of suggesting those who want higher limits should "vote yes now and change later" creating an anchor bias that would make future adjustments more difficult. We deserves treasury governance built on thorough analysis and genuine community input, not rushed decisions with arbitrary numbers that fail to account for market volatility or evolving project requirements.
- No481.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes479.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- No435.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes393.6K ₳No rationale
- No388.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes379.5K ₳Rationale
I'm voting Yes on a treasury net change limit of 300 million ADA for 2025 and 250 million ADA for 2026. This is a conservative maximum that only allows to spend what the treasury will earn in these years according to my predictions in https://forum.cardano.org/t/fundamental-critcism-of-the-budget-process/143519#p-367722-net-change-limit-2 (which are even cited in the proposal).
- Yes379.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes371.7K ₳No rationale
- No366.6K ₳No rationale
- No356.1K ₳Rationale
300m ADA may be fitting for a 12 month budget, however we're almost halfway through the year, so I would expect the net change limit to appropriately reflect the timeline that is being funded. If treasury income was approximately 168m for a 6 month period in 2024, then a net change limit closer to that figure would better suit the timeline. I'm aware that NCL does not determine the budget, but it does give the budget a guardrail, and with the excessive budget figures being proposed lately, it seems we could use a safe guardrail to prevent budget abuse. As for 2026 net change limit, it's still far too early to determine a realistic figure. In current volatile market conditions, the future fiat value of ADA is too difficult to predict. I would prefer to vote on 2026 NCL at the end of 2025.
- Yes330.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes318.1K ₳Rationale
Krypto Labs, a Cardano DRep, backs the NCL of 300 million ADA for 2025 and 250 million ADA for 2026, matching forecasted inflows (300M, 265M). Favoring a fixed amount over a percentage for clarity, this aligns with Article IV and Appendix I’s guardrails (TREASURY-01a), threshold of greater than 50% of the active voting stake. It ensures treasury sustainability, funding growth to boost Cardano’s layer 1 status, while allowing future adjustments. As community members, Krypto Labs warns delays risk opportunity loss, urging approval to maintain financial stability and ecosystem appeal, per the Constitution’s decentralized governance principles.
- Yes314.4K ₳Rationale
I decided to vote YES on this "Info Action" for the following reasons:
My approach on budget spending is relatively conservative. I am in favor of being watchful on how funds are spent.
I recognize that this is the first time we are doing this procedure and we would make errors along the way. I've come to accept that we would be far from perfect in allocating the funds on the first year but we would learn from our mistakes and optimize.
A budget of 300 million ADA doesn't mean we have to spend it all. It's just a cap to ensure we don't overspent. I've seen in the corporate world how leftover budgets often get wasted at the end of the year just to avoid having a smaller budget the next year. While this isn't exactly the same with Cardano (since we have a say in individual proposals and have a vested interest in protecting the treasury & Cardano's price), it's still a risk we need to manage.
The reasoning behind setting the budget at 300 million ADA for this year and 250 million for next year makes sense. It's based on the money coming in from transaction fees. Essentially, we're not spending more than we earn each year.
I would have preferred to decide on the 2026 budget separately after we've gone through the 2025 process and gained some experience. However, since we can always vote again and change next year's limit later, I'm okay with this proposal.
The blockchain space is super competitive right now, and it's crucial that we invest enough to stay ahead. Even though I'm generally cautious about spending, I believe we need to invest more now to gain momentum. We can always be more conservative later.
- No313.8K ₳No rationale
- No308.2K ₳No rationale