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.
- No6.8K ₳No rationale
- No3.6K ₳No rationale
- Abstain3.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2K ₳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.
- No723.6 ₳No rationale
- Yes675.6 ₳No rationale
- Abstain335.9 ₳No rationale
- No330.4 ₳No rationale
- Yes181.7 ₳No rationale
- Yes157.4 ₳No rationale
- No147.6 ₳Rationale
While we agree with the need for predictability and sustainability in Cardano’s Treasury, we do not agree with the proposed measures. Establishing percentage limits would be the best way to provide predictability and sustainability to the Treasury. See Constitutional Amendment No. 95 of 2016 of the Federative Republic of Brazil, which establishes that the growth rate of public spending will be limited to the percentage growth of the national GDP. Despite the many problems of the Brazilian administration, Constitutional Amendment No. 95 of 2016 is commendable. We do not consider it prudent to approve GAs that require subsequent approvals. The proposed results and effects of GAs should depend as little as possible on the approval of other GAs. Despite the negative response, we commend DRep’s intention to promote stability and predictability in the Treasury. We respectfully ask you to improve the proposal so that we may agree in the future.
- AbstainRevoted52.8 ₳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”
- Yes28.8 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- No0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- No0 ₳No rationale
- No0 ₳No rationale
- Abstain0 ₳No rationale