Onboarding is the gateway to adoption — and decentralizing that process is a brilliant move. This proposal promotes self-sovereign learning and aligns with the very ethos of Cardano. I’d love to see more details about how community contributions will be moderated or curated. Still, this is a bold and much-needed initiative. Let’s make onboarding truly open!

As a DRep who values responsible treasury management and long-term ecosystem sustainability, I cannot support this Net Change Limit proposal in its current form. My decision is based on the following key concerns:

🔹 1. Flat Spending Caps Are Unsustainable in Volatile Economic Conditions The proposed limits—300M ADA for 2025 and 250M ADA for 2026—match or nearly match forecasted treasury inflows.

This effectively allows 100% spending of treasury income, leaving no buffer for economic downturns, emergencies, or strategic opportunities.

Given today’s uncertain global markets, this is not a fiscally conservative policy.

🔹 2. A Percentage-Based Limit Would Be More Responsible and Adaptive Using a fixed percentage of annual inflows (e.g., 50–60%) would allow spending to scale appropriately with actual treasury health.

It would maintain a predictable reserve, provide risk mitigation, and adapt to market fluctuations.

While percentages may add some complexity, they result in better long-term financial governance and can be easily implemented through governance standards (e.g., defining via formula in a smart contract or metadata).

🔹 3. We Should Lead with Caution, Not Convenience The argument for "ease of remembering" a round number like 250M ADA for 2026 should not override the need for strong financial discipline.

Treasury decisions must be data-driven, not convenience-driven.

🔹 4. I Support the Goal, But Not the Method I agree with the intent to move governance forward and establish spending limits.

However, I urge the proposers to revise this proposal to:

Introduce a percentage-based cap

Or reduce the current figures to reflect a conservative reserve policy

A revised version could gain broader support while preserving fiscal integrity.

✅ Final Thought Being a good steward of Cardano’s treasury means making decisions that protect both current innovation and future resilience. I believe in funding growth—but with discipline and foresight. This proposal, as written, does not strike the right balance.

I believe the net change limit should be based relatively on the prior year treasury income. Meaning since there is a fixed supply of total lovelace, a high level of accumulation in the treasury relative to the total supply of lovelace is not necessary. I also believe that solely basing the net change limit on prior year treasury income will create years where net change is very high and other years where net change is very low relatively.

There should be a ratio of treasury inflows to net change limit that will pave the path for a higher or lower net change limit than prior year, or some sort of system that should be maintained to not have volatile years of funding. Moving in the direction of flat or gently rising net change limits will be beneficial to the predictability and consistency of funding projects and innovation.

An approach such as having a starting net change limit of 100 million to 200 million ADA and every year and using the information from prior year treasury inflows compared to the amount of ADA from the prior year budget to vote on increasing or decreasing the new net change limit by up to 10%. Then having a ratio safe guard that says, if the net change limit is less than 1/12 of the total budget then we can override the 10% rule and vote on up to 25% increase or greater than 1/4 of the total budget then we can override the 10% rule and vote on up to 25% decrease. Under these conditions we will have a much more stable looking and feeling fund for innovation.

The proposal to establish fixed Net Change Limits (NCL) for 2025 and 2026 at 300 million and 250 million ADA respectively seeks to ensure treasury stability but fails to address the dynamic nature of inflows. A percentage-based approach, such as 15%-20% of the previous year’s income, is a more effective and adaptive framework that safeguards resources while enabling growth.

Fixed NCLs are inherently rigid, failing to adjust to the variability of inflows caused by economic factors like network activity and staking rewards. This approach risks over-spending during downturns and unnecessarily restricting investment during periods of growth. A percentage-based limit, however, ensures proportionality—adjusting spending to the ecosystem’s actual financial performance, thereby maintaining both sustainability and opportunity.

Contrary to concerns about complexity, implementing a percentage-based model is feasible and enhances governance efficiency. Automation through smart contracts can simplify execution, while this model inherently adjusts without constant intervention, reducing governance inertia. Additionally, a percentage-based approach provides greater transparency to stakeholders, aligning spending with real-time income data and ensuring accountability.

While fixed limits may offer short-term predictability, they sacrifice long-term flexibility and risk misalignments between spending and actual resources. A percentage-based NCL ensures balanced growth by adapting to fluctuations, preserving the treasury’s stability, and supporting critical investments.

Isn't 2025 already 1/3 over. It seems that 300 M will be divided by 8 monts.

Hi, I think this is a redundant of the other proposal (233). There's another proposal about Net Change Limit but noit this one.

What is the difference between this and https://gov.tools/proposal_discussion/233 ?

these people don't beleive the price of ada will go up. how disappointing.

test

test