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.
- No26.7K ₳Rationale
The net change limit is too high for each year defined in this governance action. I will be voting no.
- Yes24.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes15.6K ₳No rationale
- No14.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes14.3K ₳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.
- Yes7.8K ₳No rationale
- No6.7K ₳No rationale
- AbstainRevoted2.5K ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain1y agoSuperseded
I didn’t vote “YES” on this governance action for Net Change Limit because of the fact that it fixed this year, 2025 NCL to be way more than next year, 2026 at 300 million ADA to
250 million ADA respectively. I thought it’d have made more sense for the reverse (ie; 250 for this year and 300 for next year) since — to my understanding — we only have about six months to execute this year’s budget and a full year for next year.Other than that fact, however, I find no other issue with this proposal, but since I could not — in good conscience — ignore the discrepancies with the number and also at the same time dismiss the rest of the proposal by voting no because of that. Hence, I hereby vote “ABSTAIN”
- Yes2.1K ₳No rationale
- No1.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6K ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted1.2K ₳Rationale
I voted no on this proposal for the following reasons. The Net Change Limit is essentially a savings plan, and it's critical for ensuring fiscal responsibility in the Cardano ecosystem. While I was always taught that 20% of my paycheck should go toward savings, I am closer to 90% savings going into Ada. For now, we need to recognize that the Net Change Limit is a foundational part of how we manage our funds, especially as it is used when reviewing both budget actions and treasury withdrawal actions to ensure constitutionality, as outlined by Article IV of the Constitution and the Treasury Withdrawal Guardrails in Appendix I. Given this, we cannot make any decisions until we reach an agreement, and I’m going to be firm on this. I want to vote yes to get this passed, but we must stand firm in what we believe. Why must we spend so much now, especially when this proposal doesn't account for the extraordinary growth we expect by the end of this year, driven by world adoption? In fact, we could see 10x returns this year, so why not save as much as possible? If I could choose the savings percentage, I would vote to save as much as we can. Even a higher percentage like 30% or 50% seems reasonable given the significant inflows expected over the next few years. The key point is that we should be focused on saving aggressively, given the market cap potential of Ada. I understand that the percentage of savings is something we should discuss further, but I believe it's crucial that we don't rush to pass something without thoroughly considering the long-term trajectory. The first year is a pivotal one for setting a precedent. If we are going to be able to adjust the Net Change Limit later on when necessary, it’s important to start out as conservatively as possible, ensuring we save as much as we can and only allow more spending when truly necessary. I would be in favor of a higher savings rate, like 50%, and I would even support lowering it to 40% later in the year, should circumstances require it. But let’s take a cautious, wise approach for now, focusing on saving as much as possible while we are in this early stage of development.
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
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.
- No721.8 ₳No rationale
- Abstain335.3 ₳No rationale
- No329.6 ₳No rationale
- Yes181.5 ₳No rationale
- Yes28.8 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- No0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- No0 ₳No rationale
- No0 ₳No rationale
- Abstain0 ₳No rationale