{
  "@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": "❌ Why I’m Voting NO on the Proposed Net Change Limit for 2025–2026\nAs a DRep committed to fiscal responsibility and long-term sustainability, I am voting NO on this governance action for the following key reasons:\n\n🔹 1. The Limit Should Be Defined as a Percentage, Not a Flat Amount\nSetting a flat limit (e.g., 300M ADA) ignores treasury inflow variability from year to year.\n\nA percentage-based approach (e.g., 70% of annual inflow) ensures the spending cap scales dynamically with actual revenue, providing flexibility in years of high inflow and discipline in lean years.\n\nFixed limits like the ones proposed could become arbitrarily high or low in future cycles, making them less reliable as fiscal guardrails.\n\nWhile a flat figure might seem simple, it sacrifices precision and creates governance friction in the long run.\n\n🔹 2. The Proposed Cap is Too High for a Fiscally Conservative Treasury Policy\nThe proposed 300M ADA cap for 2025 essentially matches the entire projected inflow for the year, leaving no reserve buffer.\n\nTreasury funds are meant to support long-term ecosystem growth, not be drained in a single budget cycle.\n\nWithout a stronger culture of cost-benefit scrutiny, setting a high limit risks enabling spending on proposals that may not offer proportional value.\n\nAs a fiscal conservative, I believe in measured, targeted investments—not opening the door to maxing out the annual inflow.\n\n🔹 3. We Can and Should Do Better—Let’s Propose a Responsible Alternative\nThis “No” vote is not a rejection of funding or progress, but a call for better, more sustainable fiscal design.\n\nI would strongly support a percentage-based Net Change Limit, such as:\n\n65–70% of annual treasury inflows for 2025\n\n60–65% for 2026\n\nThis would preserve funding capacity for the ecosystem while ensuring reserves grow or are maintained.\n\n🔹 4. Let’s Revisit This with a Better Model—Quickly\nThe ecosystem needs clarity and a working Net Change Limit—but not at the cost of bad precedent.\n\nA revised proposal that defines the cap as a percentage of inflow would likely earn broader support and serve the community better in the long term.\n\n✅ Final Thoughts\nI respect the intent behind this proposal and the effort made to move governance forward. However, as a DRep representing delegators who expect fiscal caution, strategic investment, and sustainability, I cannot support a limit this large or this rigid.\n\nLet’s take a little more time to get this right."
  },
  "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256"
}