Vote Rationale

Imagine building a house where you've just finished the foundation, and someone asks you to commit to exactly how much electricity you'll use for the next two years. That's essentially what this proposal does - it attempts to lock in treasury spending caps for 2025-2026 when our governance system is still in its infancy.

We haven't established baseline spending patterns or tested our governance mechanisms through even one complete cycle. How can we confidently predict our ecosystem's funding needs when we're still learning how to walk?

The Data Deficit

The proposal justifies its limits (300M ADA for 2025, 250M ADA for 2026) with the statement "Inflows into the treasury are forecast to be 300M ADA in 2025 and 265M ADA in 2026." That's like saying "I expect my salary to be X, so I'll cap all my spending at exactly X" - without analyzing actual needs, growth opportunities, or market conditions.

Where's the detailed assessment of ecosystem priorities? Where's the risk analysis for different funding scenarios? A spreadsheet without context is just numbers, not strategy.

The Anchor Bias Trap

The proposal suggests that those who want higher limits should "vote for this Net Change Limit and then vote for a higher Net Change Limit if one is proposed." This ignores the psychological reality of anchor bias - once a number is established, it becomes the reference point that disproportionately influences all future decisions.

It's like a salary negotiation where the first number mentioned shapes the entire conversation. If we set conservative limits now, we create an uphill battle for any future increase, regardless of merit.

Market Volatility Blindness

Let me tell you a story: In 2017, I knew someone who calculated their annual crypto budget based on January prices. By December, their carefully planned budget was worth a fraction of what they anticipated. The crypto world moves fast, and two-year fixed ADA allocations don't account for this reality.

If ADA experiences significant price fluctuations (and let's be honest, when has it not?), these fixed amounts could severely constrain our ability to fund mission-critical projects.

The Process Matters

I'm not against establishing responsible treasury limits. In fact, I strongly support fiscal responsibility. But I cannot support a proposal that rushes such a consequential decision without the rigorous analysis and community deliberation it deserves.

Good governance isn't just about the decision - it's about how we arrive at that decision. This proposal takes shortcuts where we need thoroughness.

The Path Forward

I propose we develop a more dynamic approach to treasury limits that:

• Starts with shorter timeframes as we build governance experience
• Incorporates flexible mechanisms to adjust to market conditions
• Is built on transparent, community-driven analysis of ecosystem needs
• Establishes regular review periods for reassessment

Cardano has always valued doing things right over doing things quickly. Our treasury governance should reflect that same commitment to excellence.

I'll close with this thought: The greatest risk to our ecosystem isn't spending too much or too little in absolute terms - it's failing to allocate our resources intelligently toward the highest-impact opportunities. Let's focus on building that intelligence before we set limits that may constrain our future.