{
  "@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": "I believe this proposal has no merit. A potential 0.5% increase in staking rewards is unlikely to be a game changer for anyone, whereas a 50% reduction in treasury income would have significant long-term consequences. I see no compelling justification for this change.\n\nOne of the main arguments in the proposal is that lowering the \"tax\" will lead to ADA price appreciation. In reality, the opposite is more likely. A higher treasury cut effectively removes more ADA from circulation, reducing supply in the open market. With stable or increasing demand, this scarcity supports price growth. Lowering the cut would have the opposite effect.\n\nMoreover, a smaller treasury cut is unlikely to meaningfully impact incentives for developers or users, but it would undoubtedly weaken the long-term stability of the treasury, which is a critical component of our ecosystem. Additionally, the argument that a smaller treasury would encourage more competitiveness and thoughtful spending is not grounded in reality. Poor budget management can occur regardless of budget size—the real determining factor is the people overseeing it. It is our responsibility to ensure proper management, and quite frankly, reducing the treasury would only make it harder for projects to secure funding. This, in turn, could discourage developer engagement in our ecosystem.\n\nFor these reasons, I see no valid justification for this proposal, and I believe the 20% rate should remain unchanged for the foreseeable future."
  },
  "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256"
}