Cardano Governance

This last year has seen the new dawn of Governance arrive. It is far from Ideal and there is alot of work still to be done. The NCL (Net change limit) is an upper max limit on how much ADA can be spent from the treasury in any 1 year (72 epochs) This includes not just planned maintenance and budgets, but un-budgeted emergency funds. Anyone can deposit 100k ADA and submit a proposal. The constitutional committee will confirm if the proposal is "constitutional" and then Dreps will vote on the proposal.

 I would like to see the NCL being 350m ADA this year with 20% of the treasury total being the NCL Value every year after.

Currently, the treasury holds 1.7bn ADA. I believe that all expenditure proposals direct from the treasury (except for emergency costs) should be analysed for their effects on: 

• de-centralisation
• future revenue streams for the treasury
• the ability of the chain to support the goals and needs of the ecosystem and community.
•  other funded proposals.

Any decisions I make will be holistic in Nature and may take into account other factors such as timescales or timing, previous supplier performance etc. as well as always aiming to assemble some sort of aligned strategy.

Currently (2025) the budgets process is not ideal and every day more proposals are being added. I will post my comments on a separate page here once the deadline for proposal submission ends.  

IMO the priorities over the next 12mths has to be:

• delivering the scalability from Basho*
• increasing revenue for treasury
• increasing the accessibility of and for developers
• mitigating the risk of sole source suppliers and single point failures
• setting up a system for 2026 whereby, the process is that the community decides what needs to be done and then bidders bid to carry out the work. 

(*see the Section titled Leios)

In general, I will not be supporting any of the following:

• Proposals for funding a startup
• Proposals for already funded items
• Proposals that are obvious scams
• Proposals that have a poor track record of delivering on time or at all
• Proposals that are basically for ongoing Maintenance costs of non core infrastructure.
• Proposals that do not include estimated timescales for completion, or may require a further funding request to be completed.
• Proposals looking for funds for the purpose of dispersing to others, in a vote that is not done through or accessible for all holders of at least 50 ADA, whether directly or indirectly. 

If there are grouped proposals and there is anything in that proposal that I don't think is needed or goes against the principles I shall have to vote "No". Each proposal where this is the case i shall provide feedback and explain what and why. 

I would like to see that all proposals funded submit full itemised costs, if not, it shall be taken into consideration for future proposals.

There is currently a vote for all proposals on gov.tools by D-Reps. Supposedly, the outcome of this vote may affect which proposals make it to the next round. At the same time, there is also an issue whereby CLi registered Dreps cannot vote on govtools. If both of these situations remain true before the deadline, I will be voting no on everything as this in my eyes would become an unconstitutional process. 

Regardless of what the NCL is decided to be. The emphasis is on how we spend the money and not how much..

next are other considerations and thoughts per category:

A conversation with CF needs to be had to understand what their role is regarding marketing. (As per their ICO funding) Personally, I feel that it says alot about the original set up and split of funds between the three founding entities, that the CF is the only not for profit and non-private entity, given an open ended mission objective and a rather small and finite amount of funds to achieve them.

Depending on the outcome of that conversation, (Which I doubt would happen in time for the current budget) I would potentially take the opportunity to suggest or negotiate a restructure or new agreement between the community and the CF. 

Now is the perfect time to negotiate such a thing IMO. 

Anyway, in the mean time... 

Based on my own experiences over the last few years, I believe Cardano has a Perception problem, not a marketing problem.. (Thanks Jon for putting into better words than I had before!

People perceive Cardano as a blockchain of a small cult like community with nothing happening here. I shall be looking for the most effective way to change this perception. 

Personally I believe any proposal that is asking for funding for coding should be open sourced. The treasury are not here to be king makers, or kingdom maintainers. If its funded, its open. 

We could spend a fortune on open source. So  I will look for prioritising open source code that is either essential or supports our short term goals or other funded proposals. I would be deferring to the relevant committees on these matters.

I would like to actually use open source as a way to identify and encourage new developer talent in the ecosystem. So I will be looking for a strategy that has a diverse mix of languages and proposers. 

In this section, I would rather defer to those on the intersect committees who should be best placed to advise on what research proposals have the best mix of ROI, Impact on our future development paths and Cost efficiencies.

In this section, I would rather defer to those on the intersect committees who should be best placed to advise on which of these have value or special consideration.

In this section, I would rather defer to those on the intersect committees who should be best placed to advise on what core proposals and their proposers have the best chance of providing a good ROI/Impact on Network activities and capabilites.

Recognising the current situation, I will be looking for proposals that are offering genuine needs, is open source and is not funding an organisation that is not playing a part in administering or auditing treasury funds or drep proposals directly. 

Moving forwards I would like to see that any financial compensation for providing such services for treasury withdrawals are an arrangement between the proposer and the organisation. I would also like to see more organisations, that not only offer these services to offer competition, but also have some minimum expectation regarding representation/voting process and decision making. 

In the case of emergency expenditure, such as bug fixes etc.. I will push for us to have a separate pot set aside indefinitely of at least 50m ADA. Which would have to be included in this first NCL, which is why the first NCL imo, needs to be higher. To cover this withdrawal. 

Regarding IOGs proposal for 96m ADA.. I would like to see anything in there that was part of the original Basho roadmap as a deliverable from ICO funds separated out from the rest of the proposal. I would then like to both scrutinise further the reasons why there is a proposal for completing it and discuss how to expedite completing it in the most effective manner.  If Leios is not a part of this, I would like to see this separated too.

I appreciate that right now, there is a time sensitive consideration, so I will accept certain "imperfections" but some lines I personally will not cross. 

I will not be quiet if i see this ecosystem and its community is being taken advantage of. 

I expect any entity in a position of priviledge to recognise it is and accept the added responsibility that comes with that. 

I personally believe that this community has suffered from a "build it and they will come" only mentality. There has to be efforts put in to activities that showcase the opportunity here and nurtures a competitive and diverse ecosystem. 

There also has to be external pressure from the ecosystem representatives to the suppliers to deliver on time, as promised. 

We have a real cash flow issue in the future if we keep spending on building stuff but we don't market it.

I appreciate this cannot be done on day 1, and it is not up to the suppliers to create or nurture a truly competitive environment. It is up to us to come up with a plan and implement it. the treasury is the communities and it is the only power we truly have. Don't give it away cheaply, use it wisely, but don't be so sparing with it that it doesn't attract the talent we need.