2025 Net Change Limit
The Cardano Constitution requires the establishment of a Net Change Limit, which defines the maximum amount of lovelace that can be withdrawn from the treasury during an outlined period of time. This governance action serves as an opportunity for all governance stakeholders to formally express their positions regarding the proposed Net Change Limit, ensuring transparency, accountability, and alignment across the ecosystem. This Net Change Limit facilitates a yearly budget cycle for the Cardano community. The 2025 Net Change Limit will begin at the start of Epoch 532 and continue for 72 epochs, finishing at the conclusion of Epoch 604 in December 2025. The 2025 Net Change Limit will be 350,000,000,000,000 lovelace (350M ada). This is the maximum amount that can be withdrawn from the treasury during this specific period and shall not be exceeded. The Net Change Limit will be used when reviewing both budget actions and treasury withdrawal actions to ensure constitutionality as required by Article IV of the Cardano Constitution and the Treasury Withdrawal Guardrails outlined in Appendix I.
Position history — changed votes are never hidden
YES · epoch 553 · 2025-04-23 · tx cf650deb388dfe1d…
Written after the vote was cast
What this asks for, and from whom
This is a superseded vote record on the same governance action, kept visible because this platform never deletes anything from the chain history.
What would have to be true for this to be a good use of treasury funds
The reasoning is unchanged from the vote that replaced it. My published rationale on the live vote for this action is the substantive one, and it stands for both.
What specifically concerns me
Nothing beyond what I wrote on the live vote. This entry exists because the vote was re-cast on chain without my position changing. Cardano lets a Drep replace a vote while the action is still open, and every prior entry stays on chain permanently. I would rather explain a duplicate than quietly hide one.
What I am asking of the proposer if this passes
Nothing additional. See the rationale attached to the current vote on this action for the reasoning that actually decided it.
NO · epoch 553 · 2025-04-24 · tx 3ab1f5e416c4fa6c…
Written after the vote was cast
What this asks for, and from whom
The 2025 Net Change Limit, the constitutionally required cap on treasury withdrawals for the year. This entry records a NO that I later replaced with a YES on the same action.
What would have to be true for this to be a good use of treasury funds
A cap has to exist and it has to be a number the treasury can actually survive. My hesitation was never about whether to have a limit. It was about whether this particular limit had been reasoned through or simply proposed.
What specifically concerns me
I changed my vote, and the honest reason is that I was voting against the process rather than the number. Cardano's first NCL debate was messy, with competing proposals and no clear method behind any of the figures, and my initial no was a protest at being asked to ratify a number nobody had justified. On reflection that was the wrong instrument. Voting down the cap does not produce a better cap, it produces no cap at all, and no cap is strictly worse for a treasury than an imperfect one.
What I am asking of the proposer if this passes
It was dropped. My ask for every NCL since: show the method. Treasury balance, projected inflow, committed spend, and the runway each candidate number produces. Give Dreps arithmetic and the vote gets easy.
YES · epoch 553 · 2025-04-24 · tx 38876ce4cd10dbea…
Written after the vote was cast
What this asks for, and from whom
This is a superseded vote record on the same governance action, kept visible because this platform never deletes anything from the chain history.
What would have to be true for this to be a good use of treasury funds
The reasoning is unchanged from the vote that replaced it. My published rationale on the live vote for this action is the substantive one, and it stands for both.
What specifically concerns me
Nothing beyond what I wrote on the live vote. This entry exists because the vote was re-cast on chain without my position changing. Cardano lets a Drep replace a vote while the action is still open, and every prior entry stays on chain permanently. I would rather explain a duplicate than quietly hide one.
What I am asking of the proposer if this passes
Nothing additional. See the rationale attached to the current vote on this action for the reasoning that actually decided it.
Reasoning
Written after the vote was cast
What this asks for, and from whom
An Info Action establishing the 2025 Net Change Limit, the constitutionally required cap on treasury withdrawals for the period, enabling a yearly budget cycle.
What would have to be true for this to be a good use of treasury funds
The Constitution requires an NCL and the ecosystem needs an annual budget rhythm. Without a cap and a cycle, treasury spending becomes a continuous negotiation with no boundaries.
What specifically concerns me
This was early in Cardano's governance life and the process for setting the number was still finding its shape. My broader view applies: this system went live before the ecosystem was ready to operate it, and the first NCL debates showed that clearly.
What I am asking of the proposer if this passes
It was dropped. Make the annual cycle predictable. Proposers should know when the window opens and Dreps should know the ceiling before proposals arrive, not while they are voting.