SudoScientist

As with all previous versions of Constitution updates, the following does not satisfy the process to decide which changes the community believes need change, but a single and influential actor pushing for their beliefs. I greatly believe following a formal process that results in amendments is needed- not a single party defining this and then pushing for discussion of their ideas.

Considering the Budget Info Actions that have been presented, I believe that it is in the best interest of the future Ecosystem Budgets are not burdened with the large impending withdrawals that will soon be up for vote. We have a more immediate need to address the Constitutional Committee resiliency, as no withdrawals are possible without it. The next NCL amounts also need to be considered, and focusing on the core issues that enable functional governance will take some time, and the outcome of this action will provide us a period of time to prepare for this.

While I can see the interest in obtaining such domains, I do not believe that leveraging such "unique" domains achieves any meaningful outcome. The task of expanding our ecosystem, in my opinion, is not achieved by showcasing domains that would indicate exclusivity. There are cases where others may want to obtain vanity domains, but this is not a pursuit that provides many benefits to the ecosystem as a whole, and therefore, should not use treasury funds to pursue.

For many of the same reasons I voted against the previous amendment submissions, nothing substantial has changed within the text.

As one of 3 individuals responsible for the inclusion of Article VIII, the intent in writing was for the amendment process to follow submission via a collective. We have conflated the fact that dReps are the Cardano community, but this is far from the current reality, where no true mechanisms to ensure such representation exists.

It was determined that the definitions should not be directly part of the Constitution, and a committee was tasked with defining terms in an external document. The committee, along with so defined "Subject Matter Experts" were unable to create satisfactory definitions, albeit at the failure of Intersect's supplanting of the committee it tasked to do so.

Any self-defined "clarifications" fail to regard the Constitution as an advisory document but instead assumes an authoritative role of the text. This couldn't be further from the truth, as this is the role of the CC. A living document relies on the fact that contradictions to the Constitution MUST be allowed in case the text itself would be too restrictive or ill-written in regard to amending it. It also fails to recognize one of the only defined terms within the text- MUST. The use of expected already suggests the Info Action clause is not a requirement, but not following it is welcoming scrutiny, which should already be the case with treasury withdrawals.

Even if passed, these changes offer no enforcement over its modifications, and while possibly well-intentioned, misses the mark on what changes are worth modifying the Constitution over.

As one of the delegates that fought for the inclusion of Article VIII, the following amendment's effort is welcomed, yet fails to meet the intended pathway for such changes to occur:

"The Cardano Community is encouraged to periodically review and debate its
provisions, and when so desired, come together in such forums as the Cardano
Community may deem appropriate, to propose amendments to this Constitution.
Amendments may be made as provided in this Article VIII."

At the time of writing, it was brought up that amendments issued by singular entities would, and probably should, experience a high level of scrutiny, making it very difficult to pass. This is why it was important, in my view, to make amendment proposals as a group, with as much engagement of the community as possible. The following being presented by a representative of high stake should not be taken lightly, particularly in the vulnerable stages of governance we currently reside.

The proposed changes are viewed highly inconsequential:

1. Perceived "typos" and "clarifications" add no further influence on the CC's interpretation of the Constitutional text

2. Definitions have no direct authority over the CC's determination and therefore should not be part of the text.

3. The perceived "requirement" of Info Actions within the Budget Process is the interpretation of the proposer that is already contrary to the terms declared within the Constitutional text. "Expected" is not a requirement, yet a strong suggestion that may welcome scrutiny when not followed.

4. The "Code of Conduct" is not something I ever wanted within the text, but this was already voted on the community to be included, despite pushback. I initially was concerned about the weaponization of such text by blocking dRep votes, but the CC is not afforded this capability, and this reveals the fact moderation happens at the delegator level- delegators will judge dReps/delegates based on their perceived "Code of Conduct" with or without this being included in the text, and therefore has no affect aside from the already existing social pressure delegators are subject to.

Community input on the development of Cardano has been implemented in various ways on the Blockchain. Our governance process allows ideas to be presented and vetted with community input. While criticisms on the current approaches have been made, it seems the underlying belief of the proposer is that there is a lack of community input in the development and roadmap of Cardano. which is perceived as harmful to the ecosystem. While it may seem true, analyzing the basis of this reveals, in my analysis, that the community's list of wants may or may not always match the capabilities of the developers/blockchain.

Our current method of vetting ideas seems to work better than directly engaging the community- I reject the idea that engaging the community alone creates a better direction for a decentralized ecosystem to follow.

As a music professional, it is clear that real world, in person events are among the strongest social interactions that can take place. However, it is crucial that these events are organized as efficiently as possible to be sustainable.

Onboarding the next wave of Cardano users is, IMO, dependent upon new projects having a direct interface with their target audiences; my delegates, as well as myself, feel this is a good step in realizing such a bridge!

One of the key intentions behind Article VIII of the Constitution was to ensure governance was demonstratable, not just technically viable.

By creating "sensors" for public opinion, the feedback loops necessary to gauge this state of governance can be approached. By having verifiable pathways and workshops for voices to be heard, the community is provided an option for engaging, creating a metric we can learn from.

While the need for performant websites exists, we must not forget that content comes with rights. The providing and duplication of ALL MEDIA content en masse is likely breaking copyright laws without the proper licensing of the underlying content despite the fact that many of the files may be publicly accessible. When it comes to off-chain data, a can of worms is opened...

Due to the nature of specialized usages of data within applications, security concerns, as well as the plethora of backend tools developers have at their disposal, approaching off-chain data development so generally seems impractical.

Haus promises to add their existing application to Cardano, potentially onboarding their existing customer base to Cardano. Many may question why a company dealing with millions of dollars of assets needs millions in treasury withdraws, but should Haus deliver on their claims, Cardano will have a real world project that can add to the value of the chain.

Exploring additional funding mechanisms with novel weights addresses the issue that obtaining a true representation of an ecosystem is more nuanced than what stake-based voting offers. Providing real world cases of alternatives may very well scale to new solutions adopted in wider scopes.

While the problem statement is one that I can agree with, the metrics at which will decide support will not achieve the desired outcome. Projects that will show healthy grow in the areas picked will be the ones that do not need additional support.

What needs to be focused are projects without ROI and with little transactions, but that are deemed worthy and beneficial, to obtain the needed support, of which s is likely to fall in the same intent of funding open source tooling as Catalyst has done in its previous categories.

Live events are undoubtedly create great networking opportunities for the existing community, yet has failed in the past to reach new audiences and create new users in the ecosystem.

Support of this proposal is not easily provided, as the entities behind this have practiced the shortcomings mentioned earlier, however, few are as organized as these entities to provide the needed foundation for such events to be successful, and latest events do show better outreach.

Provided administration ensures the outcomes mentioned are realized, the money should be well spent.

Ledger is probably the most widely used hardware wallet, and ironically one with the most needs of updating. Adding compatibility with the Ledger testing suite is a pathway to future updates as well as near immediate UI optimizations, all of which have been desired for some time.

Thank you Vacuumlabs for all the work into Hardware Wallets! The budget may seem steep, but Vacuumlabs has a proven track record of providing such a vital aspect to a secure user experience. It would be difficult to match the quality of output from any other known entity in the space!

Ledger already has strict requirements to accept code to which VL has already delivered. An emerging blockchain with room to grow will certainly warrant future updates!

While Blockfrost may in fact be the backbone of many web-apps, this proposal spends most of the time explaining what Blockfrost is and little describing what such a budget allocation would be utilized on. Instead of requiring funds to ensure they can distribute their dominance, the decentralization of APIs is already upon us- alternatives like Koios have existed in parallel, and APIs like ANVIL are likely to shift the dynamics that the proposer builds their case from.

Cexplorer.io remains a widely used tool and is one that is greatly beneficial. However, the proposal, in my view, is far too vague for there to be a functional administration. The proposal aims to fund long term sustainability yet fails to provide any milestones nor a breakdown of overhead that would provide data to suggest a long-term plan of sustainability would be achieved with the funds received.

I believe trust in administration can only be obtained with defined processes within the proposal stage, as no further community control is afforded after passing. Therefore, even well intentioned, yet deserving entities not reaching this threshold of trust may not be funded without it.

Providing developers more tools to improve developer experience on Cardano is worthy of support. Though I use none of the tools mentioned above as a developer, the use of the tools versus the funds requested seem to be reasonable, and these tools are demonstratable and functional.

It is clear the community feels the inclusion of this node is overall beneficial to the Cardano Community. However, administration of the budget is an aspect that needs to be clearly defined prior to a proposal. If the mechanism for administering this budget is not clearly defined, how can we properly determine it is sufficient? This sets a precedent for future proposals to have text that may present promises yet have no means of qualification. In my opinion, the administration of the budget remains one of the best suppliers of confidence within a community, and though I support the project in principle, administration should never be compromised.