{ "@context": { "CIP100": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#", "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm", "body": { "@id": "CIP100:body", "@context": { "references": { "@id": "CIP100:references", "@container": "@set", "@context": { "GovernanceMetadata": "CIP100:GovernanceMetadataReference", "Other": "CIP100:OtherReference", "label": "CIP100:reference-label", "uri": "CIP100:reference-uri", "referenceHash": { "@id": "CIP100:referenceHash", "@context": { "hashDigest": "CIP100:hashDigest", "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm" } } } }, "comment": "CIP100:comment", "externalUpdates": { "@id": "CIP100:externalUpdates", "@context": { "title": "CIP100:update-title", "uri": "CIP100:uri" } } } }, "authors": { "@id": "CIP100:authors", "@container": "@set", "@context": { "name": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name", "witness": { "@id": "CIP100:witness", "@context": { "witnessAlgorithm": "CIP100:witnessAlgorithm", "publicKey": "CIP100:publicKey", "signature": "CIP100:signature" } } } } }, "body": { "comment": "After thorough analysis, I vote YES on both NCL proposals, with a strong preference for the community's 300M/250M approach. Here's why: While both proposals demonstrate fiscal responsibility, the community version better aligns with projected treasury inflows (~300M in 2025, ~265M in 2026) and proactively addresses the expected revenue decline. Its two-year scope provides clearer planning horizons for ecosystem projects. The higher 350M cap isn't reckless, but why push the limits when we can maintain growth within our means? That said, I'm voting yes on both because having any NCL is better than none - we can't risk constitutional gridlock. The beauty of decentralized governance is seeing grassroots proposals compete with institutional ones on merit. This is Cardano's governance maturing before our eyes." }, "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256" }