Set a 300 million ADA Net Change Limit for Epochs 563–635
191 DReps voted · 56 with a rationale · 7 changed their vote · 4 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 3 to yes, 3 to no, 1 to abstain, together voting with 109.2M ₳ of voting power.
- No457.4M ₳Rationale
Summary
Yoroi, as a DRep, votes No on this Info Action regarding the setting a 300 million ADA Net Change Limit for Epochs 563–635 (637e3c256da9c1...eb7300).
Rationale
As Yoroi previously voted in favor of the 2025 Net Change Limit (9b62b3c632f329...70f900) proposed by Intersect, we will continue to align with that voting stance. - Yes441.6M ₳Rationale
I will vote YES on both of the next two GAs.
200 M ADA NCL for 2025
300 M ADA NCL for 2025 3Q- 2026 2QBecause I think the following order is good, in which case it would be reasonable to vote YES for both:
- 300 M ADA NCL for 2025 3Q- 2026 2Q
- 200 M ADA NCL for 2025
- 350 M ADA NCL for 2025（now）
The approach of determining spending based on inflows has been well-received by the community.
The 350M ADA NCL is too large for the second half of 2025 alone.
The 200M ADA NCL may be appropriate for the second half of 2025 alone, but many of the current Cardano budget proposals are expected to cover a 12-month period, i.e., up to mid-2026. From that perspective, it seems insufficient without a separate NCL for 2026.
Therefore, I would vote YES on both and recommend setting the 2026 NCL in the case where the 200M ADA NCL is approved and the 300M ADA NCL is rejected.
But personally, I think it would be better to set it as 3Q2025-2Q2026, rather than setting separate NCL 2025 and NCL 2026. This is easier to manage, since most of the Cardano budget work will probably be set in 3Q2025-2Q2026.
私は次の2つのGAの両方に賛成票を投じます。
200 M ADA NCL for 2025
300 M ADA NCL for 2025 3Q- 2026 2Q以下の順序が良いと考えているため、両方に賛成票を投じるのが妥当です。
①300 M ADA NCL for 2025 3Q- 2026 2Q
②200 M ADA NCL for 2025
③350 M ADA NCL for 2025（now）流入額に基づいて支出額を決定するというアプローチは、コミュニティから支持を得ています。とすると、
③は2025後半だけを考えると流入に対して多すぎます。
②は、2025年後半のみに適用すると、妥当かもしれませんが、現在のCardano予算案の多くは12ヶ月間、つまり2026年半ばまでを対象としています。この観点からすると、2026年用のNCLを別途設定しなければ不十分であるように思われます。
したがって、私は両方に賛成票を投じ、②が承認され、③が却下された場合は、2026年のNCLを設定することを推奨します。
しかし、個人的には、2025年のNCLと2026年のNCLを別々に設定するよりも、2025年第3四半期から2026年第2四半期に設定する方が良いと考えています。Cardano予算作業の大部分は2025年第3四半期から2026年第2四半期に設定されると思われるため、管理が容易になります。
- No304.6M ₳Rationale
Summary
As a DRep, EMURGO votes No on the Info Action titled Set a 300 million ADA Net Change Limit for Epochs 563–635.
Rationale
Repeatedly adjusting the cap could create delays in the governance process, which may prevent critical funding from reaching the necessary projects, ultimately slowing down Cardano’s development.
To conclude, 2025 Net Change Limit(9b62b3c632f329...70f900), which was approved by the majority of DReps, represents the maximum possible withdrawal amount from the Treasury, but it’s not a fixed target that must be fully used. EMURGO believes this is a reasonable initial cap for the year. - Yes216.7M ₳Rationale
TL;DR: EDC voted YES on gov_action1vdl...9yy8pl. 300m NCL for the remainder of 2025 and the first half of 2026 should cover most proposal costs. A new NCL can be proposed in early 2026, if need be.
- No170.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes105.9M ₳Rationale
NCLは、支出そのものを制限するためのものというより、先に上限を明確にしてから、提案ごとの判断を行うための基盤だと考えています。実際、今のように複数の予算提案が同時進行している状況では、まずNCLをしっかり定めることが大前提だと感じています。個人的には、NCLは300〜350M ADAの範囲であれば現実的だと思っており、今回の300Mはその中でも比較的慎重な設定と言えます。支出の精査は今後のDRepの責任ですが、その前にルールを整える意味で、今回はYESを選びました。
At this stage, I think it's important that we set the limit first—before diving too deep into individual funding decisions. There are multiple budget proposals in motion, and without a clear ceiling, it’s hard to manage things responsibly. Personally, I see the 300M–350M ADA range as a realistic zone, and this 300M proposal sits at the more cautious end of that spectrum. It’s not about pushing spending—it’s about having a clear structure to operate within, so DReps can make sound judgments. This feels like a necessary step to keep the overall process on track.
- Yes96M ₳No rationale
- Yes93.3M ₳Rationale
I vote YES for the governance action setting a 300M ADA Net Change Limit (NCL) for epochs 563–635.
As I’ve emphasized in previous discussions on NCL, it’s essential to balance monetary policy protection with ecosystem investment while also accounting for delays in the budget process.
DReps approved a budget of approximately 281M ADA, but the governance action for it has yet to be submitted. Setting the NCL at 300M ADA ensures an additional ~20M ADA remains available for spending if needed.
A one-year NCL period makes sense, beginning in Q3 2025 and ending in Q2 2026—one year after this governance action’s potential ratification.
While I personally favor a lower NCL of around 250M ADA, the majority of the voting stake supports higher spending, and that decision must be respected.
- No89.4M ₳Rationale
While the proposal may seem reasonable at first glance, I believe that using the calendar year as a clear and familiar reference point is easier for people to understand. Setting a budget period that spans across years creates an awkward timeframe and risks disrupting future cycles.This also raises the issue that a clearly defined fiscal year needs to be established for future NCLs.
- Yes89.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes83.9M ₳Rationale
As the DRep representing SIPO, we vote YES on the proposal to set a Net Change Limit (NCL) of 300 million ADA for the period covering Epochs 563 to 635.
This proposal is not a new request for funds but a necessary infrastructure mechanism to support the continuity of approved treasury disbursements—specifically, the unified 275M ADA budget submitted by Intersect and endorsed by a majority of DReps. Many of the proposals included in the Intersect budget follow a 12-month funding cycle, meaning that part of their execution extends into the first half of 2026 (Epoch 563 onward). Without a valid NCL covering that period, those proposals—even though previously approved—would become technically ineligible for treasury withdrawals.
According to Article IV of the Cardano Constitution, all Treasury Withdrawals must occur within an active and approved NCL. This proposal ensures that the second half of the Intersect budget, including mission-critical initiatives in infrastructure, marketing, research, and governance, can be executed legally and smoothly without delay.
We also believe this proposal strikes a reasonable balance between fiscal prudence and ecosystem stability. The proposed 300M ADA is close to the expected treasury inflows for the relevant period (approx. 265M ADA in 2026), representing a conservative but realistic upper limit. Moreover, it offers a natural transition from the 350M ADA limit ratified for 2025, forming a sustainable year-over-year curve that supports planning and confidence across the ecosystem.
In summary, we support this proposal as a technical and constitutional necessity to uphold the integrity of the Intersect budget and ensure continuous delivery of approved programs beyond 2025.
This is a conditional but clear YES vote—anchored in the principle that fiscal continuity is essential for decentralized execution.
- No75.3M ₳Rationale
I previously voted Yes on an NCL proposal at 200 million ADA, and No on proposals targeting 300 million ADA or more. For this current 300 million ADA proposal, I’m voting No again, for the same reasons. I continue to believe these limits are too high for the current stage of Cardano governance.
- No69.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes55.4M ₳Rationale
Voting "Yes" to Net Change Limit for e563 to 635. Although I believe the Net Change Limit should be much lower, 300M ada limit would be better than non-limitation for now. I would vote Yes if we have lower NCL info action emerged.
- Yes43.3M ₳No rationale
- No42.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes42.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes40.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes38.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain37M ₳No rationale
- Yes32.4M ₳No rationale
- No31.1M ₳No rationale
- No30.6M ₳Rationale
We are voting against this proposal. While this proposal covers a slightly longer period of 13 months and may appear flexible on the surface, we have already supported an NCL proposal for 350M ADA covering an equivalent period (epochs 532-604), and this proposal is inconsistent with that position. We have determined that it lacks fiscal policy consistency, as the cap has been lowered despite the extended period. Furthermore, Cardano is currently in a critical development phase involving the implementation of decentralized governance and scalability enhancements, requiring agility in strategic investments. Even with an extended spending period, maintaining strict caps could limit our ability to deploy necessary funds when needed, potentially reducing flexibility. Additionally, the proposal takes a conservative approach by setting the cap equal to expected treasury income, which raises concerns about constraints on contingency spending and emergency responses. For these reasons, Socious prioritizes sustainable and strategic fund management and takes a position against this proposal.
- YesChanged28.7M ₳Rationale
While the NCL of 300M ADA is still higher than what we think Cardano should spend in 2025, it is lower than the currently approved 350M ADA. Also now that ADA price is significantly higher than $0.5, it makes sense to lower NCL from the current 350M ADA proposed when ADA price was $0.5
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- Yes28.7M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged28.1M ₳Rationale
Due to the failure of the 200M Net Change Limit proposal, I am switching my vote to YES for the 300M ADA limit. The 300M cap replaces the existing 350M cap with a noticeably tighter ceiling while still covering every budget item that cleared the 50% off-chain vote. Several of those items are unlikely to also secure the 67% withdrawal vote, meaning that real spending is expected to be comfortably below 300M ADA. Furthermore, ADA’s market price has risen roughly 50% since those budgets were priced, making further restraint both feasible and prudent. This compromise keeps spending within expected inflows, preserves continuity for approved projects, and moves us toward more conservative treasury management until the governance framework matures.
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
Due to the failure of the 200M Net Change Limit proposal, I am switching my vote to YES for the 300M ADA limit. The 300M cap replaces the existing 350M cap with a noticeably tighter ceiling while still covering every budget item that cleared the 50% off-chain vote. Several of those items are unlikely to also secure the 67% withdrawal vote, meaning that real spending is expected to be comfortably below 300M ADA. Furthermore, ADA’s market price has risen roughly 50% since those budgets were priced, making further restraint both feasible and prudent. This compromise keeps spending within expected inflows, preserves continuity for approved projects, and moves us toward more conservative treasury management until the governance framework matures.
No1y agoSuperseded
I oppose the 300M ADA Net Change Limit because it is still higher than our evolving governance structure can prudently oversee and will likely encourage spending up to the cap rather than promoting restraint. The 200M ADA alternative, which I have supported, offers a more balanced path, funding growth while safeguarding the treasury’s long-term sustainability.
- No27.5M ₳No rationale
- No25.9M ₳Rationale
I have voted NO on the current proposal to set the NCL to 300M Ada.
While I am an advocate for fiscal responsibility and firmly believe our absolute top priority must be establishing ecosystem sustainability, I have already voted YES to support the passing a 350M NCL.
I beleive it strategically short-sighted to limit our latitude for flexibility earlier than later when visibility is always more clear, hence I will be most critical when voting on treasurty withdrawal actions.
- No25.8M ₳No rationale
- No25.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes23.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes22.4M ₳No rationale
- No21.7M ₳Rationale
I vote “NO” on the proposal for a 300M ada net change limit (NCL) spanning epochs 563 – 635. At the time of voting, despite being hosted using IPFS, the metadata file for this proposal was inaccessible and I was unable to verify the content hash that was provided at the time of submission. This situation highlights a potential issue regarding immutable storage mediums. While files may appear to have a greater level of immutability about them when hosted using platforms such as IPFS, if the node(s) used for pinning such files become inaccessible over time, so does the content. For this reason, it is important that files be pinned to multiple nodes in order to ensure some level of redundancy.
- Yes21.5M ₳No rationale
- No20.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes20.3M ₳No rationale
- No17.2M ₳Rationale
Stop all these competing net change limit info actions that span different epoch windows. A majority of DReps already supported a net change limit info action for 2025 of 350M.
- No16.3M ₳No rationale
- Abstain15.3M ₳No rationale
- No14.2M ₳Rationale
予算の確認に費やす時間と労力はとても大きくなっています。
見直すべきことはたくさんありますが、まずはCardanoの歩みを止めないことが重要です。 - Yes12M ₳Rationale
本提案に賛成票を投じます。これまで350M ADAの純変動上限（NCL）を支持してきましたが、その期間の約40％が経過していることを踏まえ、Epoch 563〜635に向けた本提案の300M ADAという上限は、財務運営における予測可能性と継続性を確保するための実務的な判断であると考え、支持します。\nI vote YES on this proposal. While I have supported the 350M ADA Net Change Limit (NCL), considering that around 40% of that period has already passed, I view the proposed 300M ADA limit for Epochs 563–635 as a practical measure to ensure predictability and continuity in treasury management, and I support it.
- Yes11.9M ₳Rationale
As Wada DRep, we represent a decentralized and globally connected network of Cardano community builders, innovators, and voters, many based across Africa and the diaspora. Our role in constitutional governance is to act in the best interests of the ecosystem while reflecting the priorities of our community and honoring our internal deliberative frameworks.
We have voted YES on this proposal to establish a 300 million ADA Net Change Limit (NCL) for the period covering Epochs 563 to 635, and we offer the following rationale:
As part of our review of community proposals during the 2025 budget cycle, the Wada DRep adopted an internal NCL ceiling of 280 million ADA. This number reflected a balanced position: conservative enough to avoid excessive Treasury depletion but generous enough to allow meaningful investments in Cardano’s decentralized future.
The 300M NCL now under vote is closely aligned with this internal benchmark, offering a realistic and responsible ceiling that supports the continuity of projects we already endorsed. For us, voting “Yes” on this proposal reinforces the integrity of the internal budgeting framework we shared with our stakeholders.We are in a critical phase of implementation. The Cardano community has approved over ₳275.3 million worth of proposals, including those administered by Intersect, alongside other important initiatives like the Amaru node development, which is up for voting.
Many of these projects have 12-month roadmaps that will extend into 2026. A 300M ADA NCL for Epochs 563 to 635 ensures that disbursements tied to milestones in 2026 remain viable and that there is no break in Treasury availability when it’s most needed to sustain development momentum.
In this sense, the 300M NCL is not speculative. It is a realistic reflection of existing commitments that now require a supportive fiscal framework.We understand that some in the community favor a lower NCL (such as the 200M proposal) out of caution and a desire to protect Treasury longevity. We share the value of sustainability, but we also recognize the risks of underfunding an ecosystem that is entering a new phase of decentralized governance.
The 300M proposal is a responsible compromise. It is lower than the 350M NCL already approved for 2025 but high enough to enable critical functions, including:
DRep tooling and compensation
Ongoing constitutional committee operations
Developer audits and milestone reviews
Outreach, education, and regional capacity-building
Infrastructure delivery and protocol experimentationBy voting "Yes," we endorse a path that supports responsible spending without limiting our ability to learn, adapt, and iterate.
One of the worst outcomes we can invite as a decentralized ecosystem is uncertainty, especially after budgets have been approved. A delayed or insufficient NCL would create ambiguity about whether or how proposals will be funded beyond 2025.
The 300M ADA limit reduces this ambiguity and offers DReps, proposers, and contributors a clearer framework for long-term planning. It also allows Treasury Withdrawal governance actions to proceed with confidence that funds are available up to a predictable ceiling.
Our “Yes” vote on the 300 million ADA NCL proposal reflects a careful balance between fiscal responsibility and ecosystem stewardship. This limit:
Aligns with our internal 280M fiscal model,
Supports funding continuity for already-approved projects,
Avoids disrupting long-term roadmaps,
Provides a safe, sustainable alternative to both overly high and overly restrictive limits.
In short, it is a measured, community-informed, and execution-ready fiscal guardrail.As the Wada DRep, we believe this proposal offers Cardano a stable foundation to advance its 2025–2026 governance and development agenda.
Let’s build Cardano’s next chapter boldly and responsibly.
- YesRevoted10.9M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- No9.5M ₳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.
- No8.9M ₳Rationale
I am voting **No **on the proposal to set a 300 million ADA Net Change Limit (NCL) for Epochs 563 to 635. While the intent to provide continuity for treasury spending into 2026 is reasonable, this proposal fails to address several foundational concerns I've raised in previous votes and rationales.
First, this proposal overrides a previously supported 200 million ADA NCL—one I voted for—without a clear justification or explanation of how overlapping NCLs are reconciled. The lack of a structured fiscal framework remains a key issue. I continue to believe that Cardano would benefit from defining a loosely coordinated fiscal year to align treasury budgeting, project timelines and NCL enactments. While this need not be rigid, it would enhance transparency, predictability, and stewardship of treasury resources.
Moreover, this proposal sets the new NCL to take effect immediately after the info action expires, which feels rushed. It suggests a queue of budget proposals ready to flood the governance process, eager to tap into the treasury. That sense of urgency, absent clear prioritization or safeguards, undermines the principle of sustainable and equitable resource allocation—especially when we know the Treasury cannot fund all the proposals that will come forward.
I’m also uneasy with the proposal’s use of **projected **treasury inflows as its benchmark. Treasury governance should be grounded in conservative, **realized **inflows from the prior fiscal period IMO, not optimistic forward-looking estimates that may not materialize. Spending based on future projections increases the risk of over-allocation and funding gaps, especially if treasury income slows due to market or protocol-level variables.
Finally, while the proposal meets constitutional requirements procedurally, it still lacks the modeling rigor, phased allocation strategies, or contingency safeguards that would make such an NCL both practical and responsible.
For these reasons, I cannot support this proposal in its current form and will vote No. - Abstain8.1M ₳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.
- Yes7.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7M ₳No rationale
- Abstain6.5M ₳No rationale