Vote Rationale

Treasury Tax Cuts

Back to Cardano Governance

Proposal Overview

Title: Treasury Tax Cuts

Purpose: To reduce the percentage of transaction fees allocated to the Cardano treasury.

My Vote: NO

Date: February 17, 2025

My "NO" Vote Rationale

Screenshot of my vote

Key Points

  • Proposal lacks clear impact analysis
  • No alternative funding mechanisms proposed
  • Timing is premature given current ecosystem needs

While I understand the desire to reduce fees, this proposal feels premature. We need a more comprehensive analysis of how these cuts would impact our ability to fund crucial ecosystem development.

Not Just a "Tax" - An Investment

The Treasury is not just a "tax" - it's our collective investment in Cardano's future. Before we reduce this investment, we need a clear plan for how we'll continue funding essential projects and initiatives.

Reducing treasury funding without a clear alternative mechanism risks undermining the very innovation that makes Cardano valuable. We're still in the early stages of building out critical infrastructure, developer tools, and community resources. This is precisely the wrong time to reduce our collective investment in these efforts.

Missing Impact Analysis

The proposal doesn't include any detailed analysis of how these cuts would affect ongoing and planned development initiatives. Without understanding the potential consequences, we risk making a decision that could have long-term negative effects on the ecosystem's growth and sustainability.

I would support a more thoughtful approach that includes:

  • A comprehensive analysis of current and projected treasury needs
  • Clear metrics for evaluating the impact of any proposed changes
  • A phased implementation plan that allows for adjustments based on real-world outcomes
  • Alternative funding mechanisms to ensure continued support for essential projects

Timing Matters

The timing of this proposal is particularly concerning. We're at a critical juncture in Cardano's development, with numerous important initiatives underway. Reducing funding now could delay or derail these efforts, potentially setting back our progress by months or even years.

I believe in fiscal responsibility and understand the desire to minimize costs for users. However, we must balance short-term cost savings against long-term ecosystem health. The current proposal doesn't strike that balance effectively.

For these reasons, I've voted NO on the Treasury Tax Cuts proposal. I would welcome a more comprehensive approach that addresses these concerns while still working toward the goal of optimizing our treasury system.