{
  "@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"
          }
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "authors": [
    {
      "name": "Nils Codes",
      "witness": {
        "witnessAlgorithm": "ed25519",
        "publicKey": "c0ec9eb6e9ba8e3ea94ad0227eb58432eafcea8de3298eb2be0677bf4f36ded9",
        "signature": "efb707ef94928d6b58228975309fc6880a22d9f82f47778f134b57983c2586ceea24a212d411850c92451bae94df7cbc025f49c44806a22fd8768e4242c4fe02"
      }
    }
  ],
  "body": {
    "comment": "I vote yes on the change of memory limits and minPoolCost reduction.\n\nI fully support the long-planned memory limit increase. I also support reducing minPoolCost, but bundling these otherwise unrelated changes sets an odd precedent, especially without a clear reason why they needed to be combined. It is almost phrased as a temperature check with SPOs on minPoolCost, but if that is the intent, I would have preferred that input to be gathered separately rather than making the memory limit change dependent on it. Why not a dedicated parameter change action?\n\nI support the minPoolCost reduction as an interim step, but I am not convinced it will materially improve the viability of smaller pools. Even at around 3.5 million ADA delegation, sustainability remains a concern for us. When we polled our delegators in 2025 on fixed fees of 0, 170 and 340 ADA, the majority, albeit from a small sample, preferred 170 because they understood that it helps sustain the pool. We therefore do not plan to lower our own fixed fee.\n\nI would also like to see a clearer path and target timeframe for introducing a minimum percentage based margin. I recognize that such a timeframe cannot be enforced through this action, but without it there is a risk that these incremental minPoolCost reductions remain the solution for longer than intended."
  },
  "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256"
}