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.
- No964.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes955.7K ₳No rationale
- No949.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes931.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes881.2K ₳No rationale
- No825.2K ₳Rationale
Being consistent with our view expressed in previous NCL proposals we are voting NO because we believe the NCL should be defined as a maximum percentual change of the balance of the treasury in a dynamic window of time so it doesn't need to be approved every year.
- Abstain798.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes794.5K ₳Rationale
While not in full agreement with the number itself, a vote YES here is an attempt to be pragmatic. The 200M NCL, which I preferred, failed. I prefer this proposal over the 350M competing proposal from Intersect because it is a more conservative limit, extends the timeline, and is community sourced. Most importantly, I feel that we need to clear the NCL hurdle to avoid funding delays.
- No763.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes763.4K ₳No rationale
- No759K ₳No rationale
- AbstainChanged731.5K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- No717.5K ₳No rationale
- No707.1K ₳Rationale
We, the Dutch DRep, vote No on this proposal.
We are aligned with the existing Net Change Limit (NCL) proposed by Intersect for the 2026 period. Introducing an alternative NCL at this stage creates unnecessary confusion and risks fragmenting consensus around treasury planning.
- No705.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes625.9K ₳Rationale
I'm voting yes on the proposal to, Set a 300 million ADA Net Change Limit for Epochs 563–635. Setting the NCL at 300 million ADA matches the expected annual treasury inflow, ensuring that we maintain fiscal responsibility while still enabling meaningful investment in Cardano’s continued growth. This figure strikes the right balance between prudent spending and supporting the ecosystem’s development needs. I also appreciate the structuring of this NCL to cover the remainder of 2025 as well as a significant portion of 2026, thus moving the budgetary cycle away from the calendar year end and holiday seasons. Moving key decision making processes to a summer fall cadence will make for more reliable participation. This approach also provides continuity for ongoing and upcoming budget proposals, many of which are designed around 12-month cycles.
- Yes616.3K ₳Rationale
Lalkul is voting YES on this proposal to set the Net Change Limit (NCL) at 300 million ADA for Epochs 563-635. This adjustment reflects a moderate and measured reduction from the 2025 limit of 350 million ADA, which aligns with the emerging community sentiment in favor of fiscal restraint, without compromising ongoing or planned initiatives that are already being developed within the current budget framework.
Setting a one-year NCL at this level provides flexibility for future governance decisions while establishing a steady and transparent trajectory for treasury management. - Yes605.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes590.5K ₳No rationale
- No501K ₳Rationale
First and foremost, I have already voted in favor of the 200M ADA NCL proposal, which I firmly believe represents the more prudent fiscal approach for Cardano's treasury management. Having multiple NCLs creates unnecessary governance confusion and dilutes voting power across competing proposals addressing the same need.
The Cardano Treasury is a finite resource that deserves rigorous stewardship. While Treasury inflows are currently estimated at approximately 300M ADA annually, these inflows are projected to decline over time as the reserve gradually depletes. The 200M limit better accounts for this inevitable trajectory, establishing a more sustainable withdrawal pattern that will serve the ecosystem for years to come.
Market dynamics must also be considered. Treasury withdrawals create selling pressure that can negatively impact ADA price. A more conservative 200M limit mitigates this risk while still enabling critical development. We must balance immediate funding needs against long-term value preservation for all stakeholders, including SPOs and ADA holders who depend on price stability.
The 300M proposal appears to be predicated on accommodating all funding requests rather than enforcing the difficult but necessary prioritization of resources. Effective treasury management requires making hard choices - not simply expanding limits to avoid them. The 200M NCL creates an appropriate constraint that will drive more efficient allocation decisions and greater accountability from funding recipients.
Most importantly, the precedent we set with this first major NCL will shape future governance expectations. Starting with a more conservative approach gives us flexibility to adjust upward if necessary, while beginning with a higher limit risks normalizing excessive withdrawals that the ecosystem may come to depend on.
I believe the 200M NCL better supports Cardano's long-term sustainability while still providing ample resources for essential development, maintenance, and growth initiatives. For these reasons, I must vote against this 300M proposal despite its well-intentioned aims. - Yes479.9K ₳No rationale
- No478.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes414.2K ₳No rationale
- No409.7K ₳No rationale
- No385.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes383K ₳No rationale
- Yes381.1K ₳Rationale
I'm voting Yes on a treasury net change limit of 300 million ADA for the coming 12 months. This is a conservative maximum that only allows to spend what the treasury will probably earn in that time according to my predictions in https://forum.cardano.org/t/fundamental-critcism-of-the-budget-process/143519#p-367722-net-change-limit-2. Also, extending the validity of the net change limit into 2026 makes a lot of sense since we have already wasted so much time on this mindless budget bureaucracy.
- Yes365.7K ₳No rationale
- Abstain332.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes320.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes314.4K ₳Rationale
Rationale for Voting YES on the 300M ADA Net Change Limit (Epochs 563–635)
I am voting YES on this Net Change Limit (NCL) proposal, as it aligns perfectly with the position I have consistently advocated for in my previous rationales.
Setting the NCL at 300 million ADA matches the expected annual treasury inflow, ensuring that we maintain fiscal responsibility while still enabling meaningful investment in Cardano’s continued growth. This figure strikes the right balance between prudent spending and supporting the ecosystem’s development needs.
I also appreciate the thoughtful structuring of this NCL to cover not only the remainder of 2025 but also a significant portion of 2026. This approach provides continuity for ongoing and upcoming budget proposals, many of which are designed around 12-month cycles, and ensures that essential development can continue without unnecessary interruptions while we debate future budgets.
For these reasons, I am in strong support of this Info Action and I am voting YES.
- No313.4K ₳Rationale
I have chosen to vote no on the proposal to set the NCL at 300 million ADA. While this figure is not inherently unreasonable, I believe it is insufficient to ensure the robustness and flexibility needed for effective treasury management.
A higher NCL would not imply immediate or full expenditure of those funds. Rather, it would provide contingency capacity, enabling the ecosystem to respond to unforeseen circumstances, critical opportunities, or systemic risks that may arise.
By setting the threshold too low, I believe we risk introducing constraints that could hinder our ability to act decisively in moments that demand it. This could result in delays or missed opportunities at key junctures in Cardano’s growth and governance evolution.
In my view, a more prudent approach would be to maintain a higher NCL, offering necessary headroom without obligating use, thereby strengthening our preparedness for an uncertain future.
- No298.9K ₳Rationale
I agree that we should define an NCL that extends into the next year to avoid a period without an NCL. However, I believe this NCL is too low for this period given our current situation.
Should this proposal be enacted, the Intersect budget of ₳275M would leave only ₳25M for anything else the dReps choose to fund until June 3, 2026. With the current NCL of ₳350M, the dReps would remain in control of ₳75M.
The dReps, as a collective, need to develop resource allocation skills. The only way to achieve this is by giving them a sufficiently large budget that allows for a few mistakes.
https://github.com/willpiam/drep/blob/master/vote_context/markdown/13_ncl.md
- Yes294.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes271.8K ₳No rationale
- No270.1K ₳Rationale
I have already voted for what I believe is the most appropriate NCL given the available information. Additionally, there is also now an issue of missing or altered Data, post submission, associated with this proposal.
For these reasons, I have voted NO to this proposal.
- Abstain261K ₳Rationale
Rationale – Abstain Vote on the 300M ADA NCL (Epochs 563–635)
As a dRep, I am casting an abstain vote on this governance action.The proposed 300M ADA cap for Epochs 563–635 is technically reasonable and aligned with the Treasury’s projected inflows. It also represents roughly double the annual withdrawal amount previously seen in the Project Catalyst program (~50M ADA per four-month cycle), which should not result in exaggerated sell pressure — especially considering that most proposals will likely be disbursed over time in tranches tied to deliverables.
Still, I cannot fully endorse the way this NCL has been structured. My concerns include:
It initiates a budget cycle mid-calendar year, which may further confuse proposers and dReps. While not the most critical issue, this desynchronization introduces unnecessary inconsistency and reduces predictability in treasury coordination and planning.
It includes no mechanism to limit how much a single entity, group, or proposal may request from the total NCL amount. This leaves room for excessive concentration of funds and repeats problematic dynamics seen previously — such as budget dominance by large actors.
I acknowledge that including such limits within the NCL governance action itself would likely violate the Cardano Constitution, which defines the NCL solely as a cap on total withdrawals.
However, I believe it is good practice for any group proposing an NCL to also outline a strategy to establish such guardrails and percentage limits in a follow-up governance action.
So far, this concern has not been addressed or signaled as a priority by any of the current proposers.Such a complementary governance action could provide political guidance for dReps when voting on future Budget or Treasury Withdrawal Actions, promoting fairer and more decentralized distribution of Treasury resources — a principle this community is proud to stand for.
While I voted NO on the previous 200M ADA NCL due to the risk of centralizing nearly all treasury funds around IOG proposals, I am abstaining here because I see the 300M ADA limit as a more appropriate compromise — one that could still allow critical community-led initiatives to receive funding and reduce overconcentration in the ecosystem.
My abstention is a rejection of the current structure, without blocking the continuity of treasury operations. I remain committed to pushing for structural reforms that strengthen the legitimacy, predictability, and fairness of Cardano’s budget process.
- Yes252.9K ₳No rationale
- No245.5K ₳No rationale
- No238.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes235.2K ₳Rationale
The last time I voted Yes for the 350M ADA NCL, noting that I find it too high and that I will support a subsequent proposal for a reduction. I could not however support the 200M ADA NCL, as I found that to be dangerously restrictive, given we cannot be sure where the ADA valuation ends up throughout the year. This 300M NCL however, is something I can get behind. Although valuation risks still cannot be eliminated, I firmly believe a $2 value is the bare minimum that ADA can and will reach, and hold its value above that for a considerable amount of time. Bearing this in mind, +$600M should be plenty for the next 12 months to come.
- No228.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes191.1K ₳No rationale
- No185.6K ₳Rationale
We should not be re-litigating the Net Change Limit. I supported the 350M NCL that used the previous years (2024) funds. I will support a new NCL for 2026 that will use the funds deposited in 2025 within +/- 5%.
- No178.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes159.6K ₳No rationale
- No147.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes138.4K ₳Rationale
While my primary support remains with the 200M ada NCL, which I believe best reflects a prudent, community-first governance framework, I also see this 300M ada NCL as a reasonable compromise that moves us in the right direction. It still represents a reduction from the highest proposals and signals a willingness to balance sustainability with inclusiveness. For this reason, I am supporting it as a second-preference option, in the spirit of constructive progress and unity.
- Yes137.4K ₳No rationale