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.
- No584.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes435.8M ₳Rationale
I am thinking of voting Yes for both Intersect-led NCL(350M-2025) and Community-led NCL(300M-2025,250M-2026).
There are two reasons for this.
- Regarding the amount of NCL, I believe that Community-led NCL is better. Therefore, I will vote Yes for this. I will provide more details later.
- On the other hand, the worst-case scenario is that NCL is not agreed upon and set. To avoid this, I will also vote Yes for Intersect-led NCL. Although I believe that Community-led NCL is better, Intersect-led NCL is also acceptable in my opinion. I will provide more details later.
Details of reasons and concerns
- Why I think Community-led NCL is better
I will consider the pros and cons of Intersect-led NCL and Community-led NCL. I believe that Community-led NCL proposes a substantially better figure, so I will support it.
1-a) Points where I think Community-led NCL is better than Intersect-led NCL.
・The inflow to the treasury in 2025 is clearly less than the inflow in 2024, so I think it would have been better to use the projected inflow for 2025. The logic behind using the actual results for 2024 did not seem very clear to me from the rationale in this governance action.
・It would have been better to set the NCL for 2026 at the same time. The current Intersect block budget appears to be scheduled so that all expenditures are made from the treasury in 2025, including items that may be fine to spend in 2026. Not defining the NCL for 2026 could be an incentive to unnecessarily bring forward spending plans in 2025.1-b) Points where I think the Intersect-led NCL is better than the Community-led NCL.
・The Intersect-led NCL is better organized in terms of format. This includes the definition of the NCL and its period.- Reasons for voting Yes on the Intersect-led NCL at the same time
In my opinion, the worst outcome is that the NCL is not agreed upon after all. With the trend of global deregulation of blockchain, if the NCL is not agreed upon, the creativity of the community is limited, and Cardano's progress slows down, it will be a big loss in terms of Cardano's vision and roadmap.
One concern about voting Yes to both is the troubling question of what will happen if both NCLs are approved.
2-a) If we consider that the 2025 NCL will be overwritten, we may end up with an NCL of 350M ADA applied in 2025 and an NCL of 250M ADA applied in 2026.
2-b) The 2025 Net Change Limit does not contain any wording to the effect that "if this is adopted after the adoption of 'Set 2025 Net Change Limit of 300M ADA, 2026 Net Change Limit of 250M ADA,' the NCLs equivalent to 2025 in 'Set 2025 Net Change Limit of 300M ADA, 2026 Net Change Limit of 250M ADA' will be revoked." Therefore, if we consider that the 2025 NCL will not be automatically overwritten and that both NCLs will coexist and the stricter NCL will be applied, the 300M ADA NCL may be applied in 2025 and the 250M ADA NCL may be applied in 2026.
This interpretation will likely be determined by the Constitutional Committee, but I believe that either interpretation is better than having no NCLs at all.
*I have no particular conflict of interest related to this governance action.
私は、Intersect主導NCLとコミュニティ主導NCLの両方にYes投票をしようと考えています。
理由は２つです。
NCLの金額については、私は、コミュニティ主導NCLの方がより良いと考えています。よってこれにYesを投票します。後ほど詳細を記載します。
一方で、NCLが合意されず設定されないというシナリオは最悪のシナリオです。これを回避するために、Intersect主導NCLにもYesを投票します。コミュニティ主導NCLの方がより良いと考えていますが、Intersect主導NCLも私の考えでは許容可能です。後ほど詳細を記載します。
理由の詳細と懸念事項
- コミュニティ主導NCLの方がより良いと考える理由
Intersect主導NCLとコミュニティ主導NCLのメリットデメリットを考えます。コミュニティ主導NCLの方が実質的に良い数値を提案していると考えているため、これに賛成します。
Intersect主導NCLよりコミュニティ主導NCLの方が優れていると思う点。
・2025年の流入額は明らかに2024年の流入額より少ないため、2025年の流入額見込みを使用する方が良かったと考えています。2024年の実績を使った方が良いロジックはあまり私にとってこのガバナンスアクションに記載されるRationaleからは明確ではないように思えました。
・2026年のNCLも同時に設定した方が良かったように思えます。現在のIntersectのブロックBudgetは、おそらく2026年に支出しても問題ない可能性がある項目も含めて、2025年に全てトレジャリーから支出されるように支出スケジュールが組まれているように見えます。2026年のNCLが定義されないことで2025年に不必要に支出計画を前倒しするインセンティブになると可能性があります。コミュニティ主導NCLよりIntersect主導NCLの方が優れていると思う点。
・形式面はよりIntersect主導NCLの方がより良く整理されています。NCLやその期間の定義などです。- 同時にIntersect主導NCLにもYesを投票する理由
私が思うに、最悪の結末はNCLが結局合意されないことです。ブロックチェーンの世界的な規制緩和の潮流が巻き起こる中で、NCLが合意されず、コミュニティの創造性が制限され、Cardanoの歩みが遅くなることはCardanoのビジョンやロードマップから見て大きな損失です。
両方にYesをする点の１つの懸念として、この２つのNCLが２つともに承認された場合に何が起こるのかは悩ましい問いです。
2025年のNCLが上書きされると考える場合、2025年に350M ADAのNCLが適用され、2026年に250M ADAのNCLが適用される状態になるかもしれません。
・2025 Net Change Limitにおいて、「「Set 2025 Net Change Limit of 300M ADA, 2026 Net Change Limit of 250M ADA」が採択されたのちにこれが採択されたら、「Set 2025 Net Change Limit of 300M ADA, 2026 Net Change Limit of 250M ADA」の2025年に相当するNCLを取り消す」という旨の文言がないため、2025年のNCLが自動的に上書きはされず、両方のNCLが併存し、より厳しい方のNCLが適用されると考える場合、・2025年に300M ADAのNCLが適用され、2026年に250M ADAのNCLが適用される状態になるかもしれません。
この解釈は、憲法委員会が判断を下すと考えられますが、いずれの解釈を取ったとしても、NCLが全く設定されない状態と比べるとより良いと私は考えています。*このガバナンスアクションに関連する利益相反は私には特にありません。
- No293M ₳No rationale
- No222.9M ₳Rationale
TL;DR: EDC voted NO. Setting the NCL for two years at once—even if we agree more with the 300M ADA limit—is not the right approach. As a community, we will refine the process in the coming months. There's no need to rush to set an NCL for 2026.
- No120.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes92.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes91.5M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I have decided to vote YES on the governance action regarding the setting of the Net Change Limit (NCL).
The Governance Action (GA) proposes an NCL of 300M ADA for 2025 and 250M ADA for 2026.
It is crucial that the NCL does not exceed the expected revenues of the Treasury. A prudent economist aims to ensure expenses remain below revenues while also building reserves for the future.
Personally, I would prefer an NCL of 280M ADA for 2025 and 230M ADA for 2026. That said, I recognize that during a bull market, we can afford to allocate more funds—potentially even using Treasury resources to buy stablecoins.
For Cardano to thrive, it must remain in the top 10 blockchain platforms in the coming years and stay competitive. Achieving this requires consistent investment, particularly in scalability.
From a long-term perspective, Cardano must also prepare for resistance against quantum computers. This will demand significant investment over the next decade, which needs to be factored into current planning.
The Intersect budget is estimated at 260M ADA—lower than the proposed NCL. I believe this budget can be reduced; however, even if it isn't, it will remain within the limits set by this GA. Therefore, the NCL will not hinder ecosystem funding.
I propose utilizing the Treasury to mint stablecoins within the Cardano ecosystem, which could generate yield and serve as an additional revenue stream. At present, ADA fee revenue does not meet expectations, and diversifying income sources is critical.
Yield generation could also be redistributed as staking rewards. If ADA could capture the success of the Cardano ecosystem, it could have a positive impact on the market capitalization.
These are the reasons I advocate for setting the NCL above the Intersect budget.
However, I do acknowledge the risks. If a new NCL is not approved for 2027, the last approved NCL—250M ADA—will remain in effect. This could result in spending exceeding Treasury income that year. Nevertheless, I am confident the community will successfully ratify a new NCL when the time comes.
In my opinion, the NCL should be calculated as a percentage of Treasury income from the previous year. For instance, if Treasury income totaled 300M ADA during the last 73 epochs and the NCL was set at 90%, the spending limit would be 270M ADA.
Important monetary parameters are currently defined as percentages, and it would be wise to maintain this convention. Additionally, such a mechanism could provide stability and predictability over multiple years without requiring frequent adjustments.
As the GA indicates, the method of setting the NCL can always be revised. I do not intend to promote my own perspective by rejecting other Governance Actions.
I appreciate that this GA originates from the community rather than from founding entities. It is encouraging to see the community assuming greater responsibility.
The proposed NCLs for the next two years are reasonable and align with long-term sustainability. It is crucial not to delay investments in ecosystem development. The sooner we approve the NCL, the better.
Disclaimer: If an alternative GA proposing a different NCL emerges and aligns more closely with my views, I may reconsider my vote. It makes sense to support only one proposal.
- Yes88.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes86M ₳Rationale
Why I Support the Community Proposal (300M ADA in 2025 / 250M ADA in 2026)
Among the Net Change Limit (NCL) proposals currently under review in Cardano’s on-chain governance, I hereby clearly express my intention to vote Yes on the community-submitted proposal (Gov_action10ueqgzwenxr39le68n0se9peu92r7gm2846xwehh3u0ahc0qd0uqqyljxu5).
This proposal sets the NCL for 2025 at 300 million ADA, and for 2026 at 250 million ADA. I believe this proposal is worthy of strong support not only because the numbers are reasonable, but because of its thoughtful structure, its emphasis on long-term sustainability, and its democratic, community-driven origins. It embodies the kind of governance culture we hope to foster in Cardano.
⸻
- A Responsible Limit Aligned with Treasury Realities
The defining feature of this proposal is that the proposed NCLs closely match or modestly fall below the anticipated annual inflows to the treasury:
• Estimated inflow for 2025: ~300M ADA → NCL: 300M ADA
• Estimated inflow for 2026: ~265M ADA → NCL: 250M ADAThis demonstrates a prudent approach, one that prioritizes optimal use of available resources rather than maximizing the spending ceiling. By aiming to operate within known income levels—possibly with some margin for reserve—this proposal upholds a core tenet of sustainable treasury governance: spend only what you can responsibly afford.
In this regard, the proposal reflects a deep understanding of the NCL’s role as a constitutional safeguard—not a target, but a ceiling. The intent is not to spend to the limit, but to ensure spending does not exceed what the ecosystem can sustainably support.
⸻
- Multi-Year Design That Enables Predictability and Strategic Planning
Another strength of this proposal is that it simultaneously defines NCLs for two consecutive years: 2025 and 2026. This multi-year scope enhances predictability for all stakeholders—DReps, vendors, community project teams—and enables strategic, forward-looking budgeting and development planning.
In a global, decentralized ecosystem like Cardano, which aspires to long-term viability, year-by-year uncertainty in budgetary policy can inhibit both innovation and execution. By establishing NCLs for multiple years at once, this proposal sets a precedent for better foresight and strategic alignment, potentially serving as a model for other blockchain ecosystems to follow.
⸻
- A Flexible, Stepwise Governance Approach
At first glance, the community proposal might appear conservative. However, it is crucial to recognize the explicit flexibility built into the proposal. The authors state clearly that, should the need arise, a higher NCL can be proposed and approved through the appropriate governance process.
This represents an excellent example of adaptive governance—setting a safe starting point, with the openness to scale up when supported by evidence and community consensus. Rather than locking the network into a rigid or maximalist path, this proposal provides the flexibility needed to respond to emerging needs, while maintaining discipline and transparency.
This approach aligns perfectly with the Cardano Constitution’s emphasis on sustainability, adaptability, and community-led governance.
⸻
- Grassroots Origins and Community-Centered Process
One of the most compelling aspects of this proposal is its origin. It was submitted by anonymous members of the Cardano community, unaffiliated with IOG, CF, EMURGO, or Intersect. This independence reflects a grassroots commitment to decentralized governance.
The proposers also explicitly ask the community to judge their proposal based on its merits and logic, not organizational affiliation. This demonstrates humility and a clear respect for the community’s intelligence and autonomy. In many ways, this proposal exemplifies Cardano’s ideals: decentralized, inclusive, evidence-based decision-making by and for the community.
Trust in governance doesn’t come from institutional authority, but from clarity, transparency, and thoughtful participation—and this proposal checks all those boxes.
⸻
- A Realistic, Strategic Entry Point for Treasury Policy
By setting the 2025 and 2026 NCLs at 300M and 250M ADA respectively, the proposal strikes a balance between enabling ecosystem funding and avoiding excessive market impact. These levels are unlikely to trigger large-scale inflationary pressure or significant ADA selloffs, which could depress market confidence and undermine treasury sustainability.
In fact, this modest cap could foster greater trust in the treasury, by signaling that resources will be used with discipline and discretion. Moreover, starting with a conservative limit leaves room for further treasury innovation in the future, such as:
• Guarded staking (self-staking treasury ADA to earn rewards)
• Active reserve fund management
• Diversification into stablecoins or native tokens (subject to governance)By leaving “headroom” for more advanced treasury strategies, this proposal lays the groundwork for the Cardano treasury to evolve from a passive store of funds into an active, resilient, and responsibly managed pool of shared resources.
⸻
Conclusion: A Balanced NCL Proposal that Embodies Responsibility and Vision
This community proposal presents a balanced, responsible approach to Cardano treasury governance. It is neither overly restrictive nor blindly optimistic. Rather, it reflects the maturity of a network that takes its public goods seriously, and is willing to tread carefully but confidently toward a sustainable financial future.
As a DRep, I will vote Yes on this proposal not just because the numbers make sense, but because the spirit of the proposal—its prudence, its flexibility, its transparency, and its community-driven nature—aligns fully with my vision for Cardano.
This is not simply about approving a budget cap. This is about affirming a governance culture: one that treats the treasury not as a spending account, but as a collective reserve for shared growth, responsibility, and legacy.
As a member of this community, I’m proud to support such a thoughtful and principled proposal, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that its values are reflected and reinforced on-chain.
Let’s build responsibly. Let’s build together. Let’s make the most of our shared future.
- No77.7M ₳Rationale
✅ 我投支持生态投资，也乐意看到来自社区的预算提案，这表示社区的成员们逐渐接过Cardano治理的接力棒。
不过：
📌 长期可持续性比短期激进投资更重要
Cardano 需要保持稳健的财政策略，保证未来的生态稳定性。虽然投资生态系统至关重要，但支出必须在可持续的框架内进行。300M ADA 是很高的数目， 比如catalyst生态基金就算每轮拨款慷慨的30M ADA，一年运营有大概3轮，那总共也才90M，剩下的210M ADA不管怎么考虑，都是极大的花销，我们应该花在哪里？📌 缺乏对国库资金使用效率的评估
目前Cardano 尚未建立完善的财政支出审查机制，例如 Catalyst 的资金使用效率仍有争议。在没有充足数据支撑的情况下，可能造成资金浪费/滥用。📌 支持更保守的 NCL，更符合风险管理原则
目前的市场环境充满不确定性，Cardano 也应该避免过度支出，以确保未来能够灵活应对市场变化。相比 300M ADA，我更倾向更低的预算范围，这可以在发展和财政稳健性之间取得更好的平衡。基于以上理由， 我投出反对票。
- Yes75.2M ₳No rationale
- No74.5M ₳Rationale
トレジャリーへの年間流入額が約300M ADAという実績に基づいて、その範囲内での運用を目指しているのは理解できますし、数字の根拠も明確です。ただし、この提案では2026年の上限まであらかじめ決めてしまうため、将来の予期せぬ状況変化に柔軟に対応しづらくなるというリスクがあると感じています。
Based on the actual annual inflow to the Treasury of approximately 300M ADA, it is understandable that you are aiming to operate within that range, and the basis for the numbers is clear. However, we feel that there is a risk that this proposal will make it difficult to respond flexibly to unexpected future changes in circumstances, since it is predetermined up to the 2026 ceiling.
- No73.1M ₳Rationale
While I support the establishment of a Net Change Limit as an important mechanism for financial discipline and long-term sustainability, I believe the proposed limits are excessively high. Particularly for a governance system that is still in its early stages of maturity.
Introducing such large spending thresholds at this point could set a precedent that undermines fiscal responsibility.
I encourage the exploration of future proposals with reduced NCLs.
- No69.4M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, i have voted ✅NO at this point in time, because we are lacking a fundamental definition about what this 'Net Change Limit' actually is. We need a written and approved text for that first. Is is just the Sum of all Treasury Withdrawals in a year? Is it the change of the absolute Treasury balance which also includes new inflow from tau taxes? When does a 'year' actually start? From the moment a proposal like this is voted on, from the first action doing a Treasury Withdrawal, from the moment the first Rewards are getting transfered? I'am sorry, but this is too unspecific for me.
- No66M ₳No rationale
- Yes62.7M ₳No rationale
- No50.5M ₳No rationale
- AbstainRevoted50.4M ₳Rationale
For decentralisation, it’s always better to minimise Treasury withdrawals. However, keeping unnecessary ADA in the Treasury is also unhealthy for the ecosystem. “Yes” and “No” are options I cannot fully support, so my answer would be "abstain" for this case.
Earlier votes
Abstain1y agoSuperseded
- No49.5M ₳No rationale
- No48.6M ₳Rationale
It is too early to set Net Change Limit to 2026
- No47.6M ₳No rationale
- No42.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes40.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes38.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain37.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes34.6M ₳Rationale
Cardanoの国庫にあるADAが、一部の力ある者たちのこれ以上無駄に使われないように精査する為、経緯を観察する必要がある。Cardanoの財務の持続可能性と安定性を維持するためにはこのエコシステムの開発の持続、オンチェーンでの様々なユースケースの推進などにも注力する必要があるので予算の使用状況や経過をしっかりチェックしていく必要があると考える。
- Yes34.3M ₳Rationale
Socious – Rationale for Voting Yes
Socious voted Yes on the proposal titled
"Set 2025 Net Change Limit of 300M ADA, 2026 Net Change Limit of 250M ADA."
We believe this proposal presents a realistic and conservative approach to treasury management, aligned with the projected inflows for 2025 and 2026. Setting a Net Change Limit (NCL) is essential to ensure financial sustainability, transparency, and accountability in Cardano governance.
Our reasons for supporting this proposal are as follows:
- It contributes to long-term ecosystem stability by aligning spending with expected treasury inflows.
- It maintains flexibility, allowing future adjustments or alternative models (e.g., percentage-based NCL) to be proposed later.
- It strengthens responsible decision-making by establishing a clear and constitutional framework for treasury withdrawals.
At Socious, we believe that transparent and predictable financial governance forms the foundation for creating long-term social impact within the Cardano ecosystem. We see this proposal as an important step in that direction.
Sociousの「Yes」投票理由
Sociousは本提案「Set 2025 Net Change Limit of 300M ADA, 2026 Net Change Limit of 250M ADA」に賛成（Yes）で投票しました。
今回の提案は、カルダノ財務の持続可能性と透明性を確保するための現実的かつ保守的なアプローチであり、2025年および2026年の予想されるトレジャリー収入と整合性の取れたNet Change Limit（支出上限）を設定するものです。
この提案に賛成する理由は以下の通りです：
- 財務の持続可能性と予測可能性を高めることで、長期的なエコシステムの安定と成長に貢献できると考えます。
- 将来的に、より高い上限や割合ベースへの移行など、柔軟な見直しが可能な設計である点を評価しています。
- 憲法に則った適切なガードレールを設けることで、責任ある意思決定の文化を支えることができると考えます。
Sociousは、カルダノ・エコシステムの中で透明性と信頼性のある財務運営が持続的な社会的インパクト創出の土台になると信じています。その第一歩として、本提案は意義深いものと捉えています。
Yes: 3. Abstain: 1. Not voted: 6.
- Yes31.4M ₳No rationale
- No30.7M ₳No rationale
- No27.9M ₳Rationale
I am voting against this proposal because the proposed Net Change Limit is excessively high. Setting the limit at 300M ADA for 2025 and 250M ADA for 2026 risks incentivizing the community to spend up to the full cap, rather than exercising fiscal restraint. Moreover, given that our governance process is still evolving, we do not yet have the maturity and robust oversight mechanisms needed to justify such expensive treasury withdrawals. I believe a more conservative approach is necessary to safeguard the long-term sustainability of our treasury and ensure that spending aligns with genuine strategic priorities rather than the convenience of a high limit.
- Yes27.9M ₳No rationale
- NoChanged27.5M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes26.1M ₳No rationale
- No25.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes23.5M ₳Rationale
Let's Go!
- No22M ₳Rationale
I do not agree with allocating nearly the entire treasury inflow of the Treasury to the annual budget, as this poses significant financial risks in the long run for the Treasury.
If the Net-Change-Limit budget is 300 million ADA, we must clearly define how this amount will be allocated, ensure transparency in these expenditures, and, most importantly, assess whether they truly provide essential value to the ecosystem.
Before expanding the limit change budget, we need at least three fiscal years operating with a smaller budget to collect data and evaluate capital efficiency, and impact.
A larger portion of the budget should be allocated to supporting developer teams within the community in building their dApps. In fact, the total operational budget for Catalyst in 2025 (including F14, F15, and F16) has not even reached 100 million ADA.
I would vote YES with an annual budget expenditure that does not exceed 50% of the total inflow. A budget of 120 million ADA for each year of 2025 and 2026 is a reasonable and sustainable approach.
- Yes21.5M ₳No rationale
- No21.5M ₳Rationale
I have decided to vote “no” to the first Net Change Limit proposal (7f320409d9998712ff3a3cdf0c9439e1543f236a3d746766f78f1fdbe1e06bf8#0). A Net Change Limit is a requirement before any treasury withdrawals can occur, as mandated by the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution. Currently, there are two competing Net Change Limit proposals up for voting. This one, the first Net Change Limit proposal, has suggested two limits, one for 2025 at 300 million ada and one for 2026 at 250 million ada. I prefer these values over the second, higher proposal of 350 million ada.
However, I cannot vote in favour of this proposal in its current form as it was submitted using a mutable reference which was in fact altered within 48 hours of submission, resulting in a mismatching hash and causing confusion among voters. Although this error was rectified quickly following the public acknowledgement, it nevertheless highlighted the very real risk of using mutable references that could be potentially changed with malicious intentions in the future. Voters should be allowed to vote with confidence in knowing that what they are voting on will not change after they have voted. The confusion caused among voters in first few days of this proposal being live erodes trust and wastes voters’ valuable time.
I would like it to be noted that I have no issue with the proposal attempting to establish a higher mandate for itself. Although TREASURY-01(a) in Appendix I Section 3 of the Cardano Constitution mandates that a Net Change Limit must be agreed with a threshold greater than 50%, I do not have a problem with a proposal stating that it would consider a higher threshold for itself in order to bring it in-line with other economic parameter thresholds of 67%. It would still be greater than 50%, meeting the constitutional requirement. I do not consider it an attempt to change a threshold when it is simply a self-imposing one on one particular info action.
In closing, I would also like to convey an appreciation for the attempt to submit multi-year Net Change Limits. We are already almost one-third of the way into 2025 and appreciate the level of predictability to budget forecasting that a proposed limit in advance of 2026 would have given. Should this proposal be resubmitted with a more immutable reference link and the content not change during the voting period then I would be inclined to vote yes in the future.
- Yes21.4M ₳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。
- No21.1M ₳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.
- Yes20.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes20.3M ₳No rationale
- No19.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes18.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes17.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes16.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes16.4M ₳Rationale
We believe there needs to be a cap in place, even if it gets changed later. Setting this cap at the projected inflow ensures the treasury will not be depleted while the community debates a longer-term or more refined approach. Therefore, we support this proposal.
- No14.3M ₳No rationale
- No14.2M ₳Rationale
I do not think it makes sense to decide on the NCL for 2026 when even this year's budget cannot be decided smoothly. Depending on the DReps, there might be an extra budget for 2025. Or it might not be enough. I think we should concentrate as much as possible on the 2025 budget first.
- No14.1M ₳No rationale