{ "@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": "As a DRep, I have decided to vote YES on the second governance action regarding the setting of the Net Change Limit (NCL).\nCurrently there are 2 governance actions submitted regarding NCL. The first one is submitted by the community and the second one by Intersect. This creates chaos.\n\nFirst GA from the community:\ngov_action10ueqgzwenxr39le68n0se9peu92r7gm2846xwehh3u0ahc0qd0uqqyljxu5\n\nSecond GA from the Intersect:\ngov_action1nd3t833j7v5sz65k3tp9yyvztw60sjcjgcgjr37682s3m7frwrusqmd2k80\n\nIt is logical to compare both actions and choose only one.\n\nGA from Intersect defines the term NCL and specifies the validity period of NCL.\n\n\"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.\"\n\nThis is just a cosmetic improvement. I assume that all DReps understand the term NCL. I don't mind that the period is vaguely defined for 2025 and 2026 in the first GA.\n\nIntersect GA is better structured, more accurate, and contains relevant links. I appreciate that.\n\nThe most important thing regarding NCL is the amount of ADA that should be set as the limit for treasury withdrawals.\n\nThe first GA wants to cap the NCL at 300M ADA while the second GA wants to cap it at 350M ADA.\n\nIn my rationale for the first GA, I mentioned that I would like to see the NCL lower, somewhere around 280M ADA. 300M ADA was acceptable to me.\n\n350M ADA is the maximum amount I am willing to accept from my perspective. I am aware that this is a relatively high NCL. My poll shows that the NCL of 350M ADA is considered high by most respondents.\n\nAlthough it is not necessary to withdraw ADA up to the NCL, there will always be a risk that the maximum possible amount will be withdrawn. My concern is that this may happen.\n\nThe cryptocurrency ecosystem is unique in that Treasury investments in the ecosystem have a direct negative impact on the market price of ADA. Entities that receive ADA will mostly sell them because they are forced to pay costs in USD. Selling pressure can grow.\n\nIf the ADA price is low in a bear market, in 2026 it may be necessary to sell a relatively large amount of ADA to obtain the necessary amount in USD. Treasury can quickly run out. Of course, it will be possible to approve the NCL for 2026, which can prevent this. It is likely that a new NCL will be proposed.\n\nADA is perceived as money. Their market price, or rather the capitalization of Cardano, is an important factor from a demand perspective. If Cardano does not stay in the top 10, it could prevent the adoption of the ecosystem.\n\nAnother negative impact could be the US government's disinterest in including ADA in the state stockpile. Let us keep these risks in mind.\n\nOn the other hand, without continuous protocol improvements and ecosystem development, adoption is largely limited. Cardano's attractiveness would depend only on decentralization and monetary policy.\n\nCardano is being built as an SC platform. As such, it depends on the growing network effect. This in turn depends on scalability.\n\nAs a DRep, I have to carefully balance the short-term negative impact on the ADA price that will harm SPOs, stakers and possibly adoption and the long-term potentially positive impact on the ecosystem.\n\nSo I would like to see the NCL set to a maximum of 280M ADA. 350M ADA is too much. Nevertheless, I decided to vote YES for this GA. Why?\n\nA GA can be submitted at any time that will lower or increase the NCL for a given period.\n\nIndividual withdrawals are more important than NCL. DReps should carefully consider each withdrawal and assess the long-term impact. This is where savings must be made. Let's invest primarily in technology, not in meetings and discussion groups. \n\nWith a higher NCL, we have more maneuvering options. It is not necessary to invest all ADA up to NCL. Theoretically, we can lock ADA in DeFi. These are relevant reasons to have a higher NCL. I can justify to myself why I approve of a high NCL.\n\nIn addition, we need to ratify some NCL so that we can start withdrawing ADA from the Treasury. We are at the end of Q1 and NCL is still not defined.\n\nThe dilemma I have is whether to vote YES for only one GA or for both. In the previous rationale, I stated in the disclaimer that if a better GA for NCL appears, I can change my vote.\n\nFrom my point of view, the community GA is more treasury-friendly, so I support it a little more. So I will not change my vote for the community GA. Let both GAs have my support. Let the better one win.\n\nI am aware that I am contributing to the chaos. It would be better to vote for only one GA. I will monitor the feedback and read other rationales. I will respond if necessary.\n\nAt this point, I want to vote as quickly as possible and provide my thoughts.\n" }, "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256" }