{"@context":{"CIP100":"https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#","hashAlgorithm":"CIP100:hashAlgorithm","body":{"@id":"CIP100:body","@context":{"comment":"CIP100:comment"}}},"hashAlgorithm":"blake2b-256","body":{"comment":"I am voting NO on “Net Change Limit Cardano Treasury (Epochs 613–713).” The Net Change Limit is intended to function as a fiscal guardrail: a fixed cap on total Treasury outflows for a defined period, agreed in advance so that DReps and proposers can plan within a known envelope. The existing 350,000,000 ADA Net Change Limit for Epochs 613–713 was agreed on that basis and has already been in effect for this period.\n\nThis Info action does not propose a new frame for a future period; it explicitly seeks to replace the existing 350,000,000 ADA limit for the same Epoch 613–713 window with a higher 500,000,000 ADA limit, while carrying forward all withdrawals already made in this period. In other words, it retroactively enlarges the guardrail for an active window simply because the “practical room under it is becoming constrained.” In my view, that undermines the core purpose of having a Net Change Limit at all. A guardrail that can be raised as soon as it starts to bite is not a meaningful constraint; it becomes a number that is adjusted whenever it becomes inconvenient.\n\nThe proposal argues that nothing in the Constitution or guardrails prevents agreeing a new Net Change Limit for the same period, and narrowly read, that is correct. However, the absence of an explicit prohibition on multiple Net Change Limits for a single period, or on proposers pairing Net Change Limit increases with large Treasury Withdrawals, should be treated as an oversight in the current framework, not as an invitation to work around the intent of the guardrail. The governance standard should be that DReps respect the purpose of the guardrails, not only their narrow wording. Intentionally weakening a live guardrail once it begins to constrain spending is, in substance, gaming the system even if it can be made to fit within the letter of the rules.\n\nThe timing also matters. Introducing a mid‑period Net Change Limit increase at the same time that very large Treasury Withdrawal proposals are on the table naturally creates the appearance that the higher limit is being sought to accommodate those asks rather than as part of a considered, forward‑looking fiscal framework. Even if there is no formal link, this pattern erodes confidence in the neutrality and durability of the Treasury guardrails: it suggests that whenever significant spending pressure appears, the answer will be to change the limit rather than to apply discipline to the spending.\n\nIf the community believes that a 350,000,000 ADA Net Change Limit is too low as a matter of long‑term policy, then the appropriate process is to debate and agree a revised framework for future periods once the current window has concluded, not to retroactively increase capacity within the ongoing one. Until such a revision is agreed, the existing limit should be honored as a genuine constraint, and DReps should exercise their discretion within it. For these reasons, I do not support raising the Net Change Limit for Epochs 613–713 in midstream, and I am voting NO."}}