Set a 300 million ADA Net Change Limit for Epochs 563–635
191 DReps voted · 55 with a rationale · 11 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged7.6M ₳Rationale
I will change my vote for the 300M NCL from NO to YES.
a. It is not backdated to the start of the 2025 calendar year, meaning that a new NCL will not be needed for a full year
b. The spending period matches a full year from now (around May 17 when epoch 563 started), and the rate is more sustainable than the 350M ADA NCL that has been approved.Given we're still figuring out the budgeting process, this is a more responsible choice than the already approved 350M ADA NCL.
OLD RATIONALE FOR NO VOTE BELOW
I voted YES for an earlier previous NCL action that sought to set the NCL at ₳200M for 8 months until the end of the calendar year. I saw that as a better choice than the initially proposed ₳350M NCL motion. That vote still stands and I think it would help to jumpstart the budget process.
This current action proposes to set the NCL at ₳300M for 12 months from Epoch 532 to the end of Epoch 604. On the face of it, they may be similar.
Yet, for a 12 month period, I do not support ₳300M ADA in spending.
I favor an annual (12 month) NCL of up to ₳200M - 250M ADA at a time when budgetary
processes are weak, auditing capacity is unproven, DRep resistance to outside pressure is low, the fate of Intersect MBO is uncertain and the entire process remains convoluted because it is minimum viable governance.A complex Minimum Viable Governance voting stage means that many small DReps who cannot devote hours and hours to the process with the current rugged tooling and shifts - are either unable to participate or unwilling to participate.
More organized institutional DReps or holders some of whom may be both DReps and also requesting funds from the treasury - face lower barriers to accessing funds. I see this as a danger.
Over the Ekklesia tool, I have voted YES for ₳141.43m in funding requests. I have abstained from voting on Catalyst that is a further 70M ADA (likely to pass) and from voting on Intersect's budget (max 20M ADA, possibly lower after recent changes).
If my voting tally were to be added up with the Intersect and the Catalyst requests - the total would still be below ₳250M.
By voting NO on this proposal, I am signaling that a NCL of up to ₳200M - 250M ADA would be my preferred choice as it is more responsible at this stage of minimum viable governance.
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
I voted YES for an earlier previous NCL action that sought to set the NCL at ₳200M for 8 months until the end of the calendar year. I saw that as a better choice than the initially proposed ₳350M NCL motion. That vote still stands and I think it would help to jumpstart the budget process.
This current action proposes to set the NCL at ₳300M for 12 months from Epoch 532 to the end of Epoch 604. On the face of it, they may be similar.
Yet, for a 12 month period, I do not support ₳300M ADA in spending.
I favor an annual (12 month) NCL of up to ₳200M - 250M ADA at a time when budgetary
processes are weak, auditing capacity is unproven, DRep resistance to outside pressure is low, the fate of Intersect MBO is uncertain and the entire process remains convoluted because it is minimum viable governance.A complex Minimum Viable Governance voting stage means that many small DReps who cannot devote hours and hours to the process with the current rugged tooling and shifts - are either unable to participate or unwilling to participate.
More organized institutional DReps or holders some of whom may be both DReps and also requesting funds from the treasury - face lower barriers to accessing funds. I see this as a danger.
Over the Ekklesia tool, I have voted YES for ₳141.43m in funding requests. I have abstained from voting on Catalyst that is a further 70M ADA (likely to pass) and from voting on Intersect's budget (max 20M ADA, possibly lower after recent changes).
If my voting tally were to be added up with the Intersect and the Catalyst requests - the total would still be below ₳250M.
By voting NO on this proposal, I am signaling that a NCL of up to ₳200M - 250M ADA would be my preferred choice as it is more responsible at this stage of minimum viable governance.
- Abstain6.4M ₳No rationale
- No5.9M ₳Rationale
The idea behind the proposal adjusting the NCL to cover 2026 can make sense, however I disagree with the motivation. It's letting an NCL be driven budget proposal timelines. I also do not see a need to have an NCL timeline match exactly to a budget proposal length. There is nothing to stop a treasury withdraw prior to the end of 2025 for a project that will not be completed until some time in 2026, or even later. NCLs do not have a need to stay open to meet budget timelines - it would never end.
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.7M ₳No rationale
- Abstain4.6M ₳No rationale
- No4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain4.4M ₳No rationale
- No4.2M ₳No rationale
- No4.1M ₳No rationale
- No4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "Não" nesta ação de governança (637e3c256da9c1350847ca3211e8c44e3660a4471e8b6f68a8c537746b4aeb7300), pois alterar o limite de gastos previamente definido, neste momento, colocaria em risco a continuidade do desenvolvimento e geraria incertezas para os construtores.
[English]
We chose to vote "No" on this governance action (637e3c256da9c1350847ca3211e8c44e3660a4471e8b6f68a8c537746b4aeb7300) because changing the previously defined spending limit at this time would risk the continuity of development and create uncertainty for builders. - Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.8M ₳No rationale
- No3.7M ₳Rationale
We previously supported a lower NCL which did not pass. We are now at a point where we believe the community has spoken and we should therefore just proceed with the NCL that has been voted yes on. Additional proposals at this stage just add additional confusion and we should now just be getting on with what has been agreed
- No3.1M ₳Rationale
This NCL surpasses my personal NCL of 250M ADA and violates my stance on fiscal responsibility. I went through the Ekklesia budget voting process, and could not find enough worthwhile proposals to surpass my NCL of 250M ADA. I am concerned that NCL will end up being a spending cap that will be filled every time, so I have to vote as such.
- NoChanged3M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- No2.6M ₳Rationale
私は、本提案に対してNO票を投じます。これは、私が以前350M ADAのNCL提案に対して慎重ながらも賛同の意を示した判断と軸を一にするものです。
2025年前半は、Cardanoにとって分散型ガバナンスの制度実装、L2技術の導入、ミドルウェアとトークノミクス設計の革新など、全方位的な基盤強化が求められている局面です。私は当時、この重要なフェーズにおいて、資金制約が進展の障害とならぬよう、例外的な支出上限拡大に賛同する立場をとりました。
今回の提案は、まだ審議中または承認直後の複数の重要提案の執行余地に影響を及ぼす可能性があり、現段階では時期尚早とも考えられます。また、350Mからの引き下げについては、その必要性や緊急性を裏付ける根拠が十分に共有されていないと感じています。結果として、先に設定された財政方針との整合性が揺らぐ懸念もあります。
したがって私は、1. 現行の350M NCLを当面維持、2. 実行フェーズにある重要提案を財政的に支援、3. 将来的なNCL見直しは次期財政年度の状況を見据えて検討すべき、という立場をとります。
本判断は、拡張的支出の常態化を望むものではなく、今この時期に必要な柔軟性を確保するための戦略的意思表示です。
I cast a NO vote on this proposal. This decision is consistent with the position I previously took when I supported the 350M ADA NCL proposal, with a cautious but strategic outlook.
The first half of 2025 marks a critical period for Cardano—one that requires foundational development across multiple domains, including the implementation of decentralized governance, the deployment of L2 technologies, and innovation in middleware and tokenomics. At that time, I expressed support for an exceptional increase in the spending cap, recognizing the need for flexibility in such a pivotal phase.
This proposal, however, may constrain the execution of several important initiatives that are still under review or were only recently approved. At this stage, it may be premature. Furthermore, the rationale for reducing the limit from 350M ADA has not been clearly substantiated in terms of necessity or urgency. As such, it raises concerns about consistency with the fiscal direction already established.
Therefore, I advocate the following: 1. Maintain the current 350M ADA NCL in the near term, 2. Support critical proposals already in the execution pipeline, and 3. Reassess the NCL in light of the next fiscal cycle.
This is not a call for continued high spending, but rather a strategic expression in favor of preserving the flexibility needed at this particular juncture.
- No2.5M ₳Rationale
I would like to see 150-250 as anything higher does not fully ensure the treasury will continue to grow.
- No2.4M ₳No rationale
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- NoChanged2.1M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳Rationale
I will vote YES to establish a Net Change Limit (NCL) of 300 million ADA covering epochs 563 to 635.
Rationale
Prior Voting Behavior
I have consistently supported a disciplined yet pragmatic approach to Treasury management.I previously voted NO on a 200M ADA NCL (too restrictive) and YES on a 350M ADA NCL (more aligned with strategic flexibility).
In the Intersect budget temperature check, I backed around 345M ADA worth of proposals — higher than my ideal comfort level, but in recognition of the critical need to fund governance and ecosystem infrastructure.
The Intersect proposal has since been refined to 275M ADA. It is still a significant amount of ADA, but I agree with the areas covered in the budget for critical infrastructure and growth. Therefore, I am now more comfortable with reducing the NCL from 350M ADA to 300M ADA. 300 MM ADa leaves an extra 25M ADA for other proposals, such as the Amaru Node proposal, which I have voted YES on.
Approving a 300M ADA NCL balances fiscal prudence with strategic investment. I feel comfortable with 300M ADA as a middle ground — it is high enough to fund critical initiatives, but low enough to prevent excessive overspending. A 300M ADA NCL aligns with projected Treasury inflows. It sends a signal of responsibility and ambition: that we are serious about scaling Cardano while also committed to preserving Treasury sustainability.
Although it is not guaranteed, I am writing this rationale assuming the Intersect info action will be approved, based on the results observed so far.
I fully acknowledge we are authorizing the withdrawal of a significant amount of ADA. Treasury stewardship must remain paramount. However, platforms operating within exponential technology ecosystems like Cardano cannot afford underinvestment at a critical growth phase.
The risks of underfunding key infrastructure and governance maturation far outweigh the carefully managed risks of targeted investment. This is the time to establish a robust foundation — and it requires deliberate, well-scoped financial commitments.
VOTE0011
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
I support this NCL because 300M ADA matches the treasury’s expected inflow for the same 73-epoch window (Epoch 563 – 635), keeping withdrawals in line with deposits. It gives teams approved for 2025 a clear budget runway into early 2026 while staying below the 350 M cap I previously endorsed, preserving reserves for future cycles. A simple, inflation-neutral ceiling maintains fiscal discipline yet leaves room for essential infrastructure and governance work—exactly the balance our earlier votes aimed to achieve.
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
I support the 300M ADA NCL for 2025-2026 to enforce fiscal discipline, restricting the current 350M NCL and aligning more closely with treasury inflows and my preference for a 200M NCL.
This ceiling, covering 2025 and much of 2026, ensures development continuity while pressuring Treasury Withdrawal actions to further justify their proposals and amounts asked. My Eckklesia Budget Poll choices (~196M ADA) will reflect my voting on Treasury Withdrawals going forward, omnibus bills will be voted down. - No1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
The proposal to set a Net Change Limit (NCL) of 300M ADA spanning epochs 563 to 635 raises serious concerns from a governance and financial stewardship perspective. First, it is important to recall that the community has already sanctioned an NCL of 200M ADA, explicitly covering the entirety of 2025. This existing limit was established to ensure prudent, measured disbursement of Treasury funds aligned with clear accountability and project milestones.
Requesting an immediate increase to 300M ADA, effectively front-loading additional funds for both 2025 and 2026, circumvents the discipline of periodic review and assessment. It undermines the principle of incremental funding based on demonstrated outcomes, which is essential in safeguarding the Treasury and maintaining trust within the community. Approving a larger NCL now, without the benefit of evaluating the tangible results of projects funded under the current 200M ADA limit, risks diluting financial rigor and could set a precedent for less transparent budget expansions in the future.
Moreover, this approach conflicts with the strategic imperative to align financial governance with a business-minded, outcome-driven framework. The Cardano ecosystem’s long-term stability depends on measured, evidence-based decisions rather than speculative or convenience-driven increases. A more responsible and sustainable path would be to approve a new NCL for 2026 during Q3 2025, post comprehensive review of project milestones and Treasury inflows. This timing respects the community’s right to informed decision-making and ensures that Treasury allocations remain firmly tethered to performance and strategic priorities.
In light of these considerations, I strongly oppose the proposed NCL increase to 300M ADA at this juncture. Upholding financial discipline and transparency is paramount to preserving the integrity of Cardano’s governance and securing its future as the most decentralized, scientifically grounded PoS network. I therefore vote "No" on this governance action.
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Yes971.5K ₳No rationale