Governance ReviewNo. 3Epochs 517 to 52221 Oct 2024 to 20 Nov 2024
Atrium Lab's K question closes at 15.5% of DRep power
Atrium Lab's question about raising Cardano's stake pool target closed with 88 DReps voting yes and 54 voting no. The no voters held more than twice the delegated power of the yes voters. The information action itself could not change the parameter.
More DReps vote yes on K, more delegated power votes no
Should K increased?, put forward by Atrium Lab in epoch 514, asked whether Cardano should raise K, the target number of stake pools, which sets the saturation point beyond which more stake no longer raises a pool’s rewards. The document puts K at 500. It also states that it is no suggestion to change anything and that its goal was to get more people voting before the next hard fork. The action closed at the start of epoch 521 with 15.5% of DRep power.
More DReps voted yes than no, 88 to 54 with 22 abstaining, but the no votes carried ₳347.9M of delegated power, the yes votes ₳153.1M and the abstentions ₳119.0M. By power at epoch 522 the largest no votes came from the Eternl DRep Committee, JAZZ, Martin Lang and AKYO, while YUTA, the largest DRep, had abstained in epoch 515 for the reasons the review of epochs 514 to 516 quotes. Pools cast 51 yes votes, 29 no and 4 abstain.
CIP-1694 sets every threshold of an information action at 100% and rules out its ratification, and in the bootstrap phase then in force a change to K itself needed only a committee vote. The 15.5% is an on-chain record of opinion with no effect on the parameter.
DRep power behind yes and no votes on the pool target question, per epoch
In millions of ada, from its submission in epoch 514 to its last epoch of voting in 520
The Eternl DRep Committee votes no, Hephaestus Stake Pool wants a smaller step
The Eternl DRep Committee voted no in epoch 518, writing that a raise “would only raise Cardano’s operational costs without adding any real value” on a network that had run stably for over four years. Chris of Straightpool voted no in epoch 520, writing that the reward sharing scheme should be addressed as a whole rather than by “manipulating k in isolation”. HeptaSean voted no in the same epoch, writing that the supporting links left the impression of a “pure promotion stunt” and that it was not sure Cardano could sustain 500 pools, let alone 1,000. InputEndorsers changed its vote to no in epoch 519, citing the Cardano Foundation’s committee finding and agreeing that the action lacked relevant supporting materials.
Hephaestus Stake Pool voted yes in epoch 520 but wrote that K should not rise as far as the 1,000 often put forward, and that a step to 588 would bring the saturation point back to its level of December 2020, when K was set to 500. HAZEL, a stake pool, voted yes in epoch 519 for a step to 750, writing that so much held ada is inactive that doubling K would cost many holders their rewards, often for long periods.
Three committee members find the K question unconstitutional
The Cardano Foundation found the action unconstitutional in epoch 519, the Cardano Japan Council and the Intersect Constitutional Council in epoch 520. The Cardano Japan Council wrote that it discusses a change to K but lacks “the necessary foundational research and objective indicators”. The Intersect Constitutional Council found its supporting material, three links to Atrium Lab, not sufficiently relevant to the question, and wrote that it had neither supported nor opposed any change to K. The Cardano Atlantic Council abstained in epoch 519 and the Eastern Cardano Council in epoch 520, the latter because the action by its own text measures no sentiment towards another action that can be enacted on chain. Emurgo and Input Output did not vote.
Ikigai, the note of thanks, closes at 41.4%
Cardanoの生きがい - Ikigai -, submitted in epoch 510, thanks Input Output, EMURGO and the Cardano Foundation and asks for no change on chain or off it. It closed at the start of epoch 517 with 41.4% of DRep power. It drew 104 yes votes, 3 no and 16 abstain, ₳271.8M of power for it and ₳3.2M against, so most of its no side was power that did not vote. Pools cast 44 yes votes to 1 no. The Cardano Japan Council, the Cardano Foundation and the Intersect Constitutional Council voted yes, the Cardano Atlantic Council, the Eastern Cardano Council and Input Output abstained, and Emurgo did not vote. All of its votes were cast in epochs 510 to 516, and the review of epochs 508 to 513 and the review of epochs 514 to 516 quote selected reasons.
Intersect files three proposals still open at the close
Intersect’s first filing of a Plutus cost model update arrived in epoch 518, and Intersect’s governance actions repository records that it was found not to have the desired effect on chain and that its metadata address was broken on purpose. Plutus V3 Cost Model Parameter Changes Prior to Chang#2 followed in epoch 519 under the same title and abstract, with prices for 12 new Plutus operations that the hard fork to protocol version 10 would add, recommended by Intersect’s Parameter Committee and approved unanimously by its Technical Steering Committee. Neither drew a DRep or pool vote.
Rename the Chang 2 Hard Fork to the Plomin Hard Fork, filed in epoch 522 by Intersect for its Hard Fork Working Group, asks for that hard fork to be named in memory of Matthew Plomin, a community contributor who died in November 2024.
Delegation to DReps grows by ₳576.8M to ₳1.23B
The power delegated to DReps grew ₳576.8M between epochs 517 and 522, from ₳651.8M to ₳1.23B, the highest reading since epoch 508, held by 518 DReps. Of those, 371 had not voted in the previous twelve epochs. DReps cast 73 votes in the six epochs, with none recorded in epoch 521, after voting on the K question had ended and before the Plomin name was filed. Of the 154 votes cast across the window, superseded votes included, pools cast 70 and committee members 11, with final votes from 70 distinct DReps and 65 pools. The treasury stood at ₳1.60B at epoch 522, ₳22.8M above its epoch 517 reading, and withdrawals from it were not yet possible under the bootstrap rules.
Decided in this window
| Action | Outcome | DRep yes |
|---|---|---|
| Should K increased? | Closed 521 | 15.5% |
| Cardanoの生きがい - Ikigai - | Closed 517 | 41.4% |
Open at the close of the window
| Action | Status | DRep yes |
|---|---|---|
| A parameter change without a title in the record | Voting ends at the start of epoch 525 | n/a |
| Plutus V3 Cost Model Parameter Changes Prior to Chang#2 | Voting ends at the start of epoch 526 | n/a |
| Rename the Chang 2 Hard Fork to the Plomin Hard Fork | Voting ends at the start of epoch 529 | n/a |
n/a: DReps had no vote on this action under the rules then in force.
n/a: the record holds no DRep share from inside this window for this action, only a tally read after it closed.
The numbers behind the window
- Delegated to DReps, at the start of epoch 517
- ₳651.8M
- Delegated to DReps, at the start of epoch 522
- ₳1.23B
- Votes cast in the window, superseded votes included
- 154
- DReps whose final vote fell in the window
- 70
- Treasury, at the start of epoch 517
- ₳1,574.0M
- Treasury, at the start of epoch 522
- ₳1,596.9M
- DRep shares are the share of counted power: abstaining power is left out, while power that did not vote and power delegated to the always no confidence option are folded into the no side. That is why the pool target question reads 15.5% and the note of thanks 41.4%, well below the split of the power behind their yes and no votes alone.
- The reasons quoted are the published rationales of the voters named, cited under the sources below with the epoch each vote was cast in, and say nothing about voters who published none. No rationale of the Cardano Foundation on the pool target question is among those stored, so its finding is described through the rationales of InputEndorsers and the Intersect Constitutional Council, which cite it.
- What the pool target question, the note of thanks, the cost model update and the rename signal asked for, and who filed them, is read from their own documents and from Intersect's governance actions repository, named under the sources below. The document behind the pool target question lists no author: that Atrium Lab filed it rests on its references, which call Atrium Lab's account on X its proposal thread and Atrium Lab's education portal its own.
- That an information action cannot be ratified, and that in the bootstrap phase a committee vote alone was sufficient to change protocol parameters, comes from CIP-1694, cited under the sources below, not from the snapshot, which stores a DRep share of zero beside a 67% bar for both parameter changes. The table therefore shows no DRep share for them.
- The two parameter changes and the rename signal were filed in this window and decided after it. The rename signal's share was read after it closed, so no share is given for it here, only the votes cast in epoch 522.
- Votes cast is every vote of epochs 517 to 522 across all three roles, superseded votes included, and so is the power per epoch in the chart. DRep vote counts per epoch and the counts of recently voting and silent DReps exclude votes without a block time, so an epoch with no recorded vote is not proof that none was cast. The largest no votes are ranked by power at epoch 522, not at the close of the vote. Delegated power excludes the predefined delegation options.
Sources and further reading
17 sources, open the list
- The document behind the pool target question explains that K sets the saturation point of a pool, states that K is currently 500, that the action is by no means a suggestion of what protocol parameters should be changed, and that its goal is to increase governance participation before the next hard fork. It lists no author, and its references call Atrium Lab's account its proposal thread and Atrium Lab's education portal its own. the document behind the pool target question
- CIP-1694 describes an info action as an action with no effect on chain other than an on chain record, sets every threshold for it at 100% and states that info actions cannot be ratified or enacted. During the bootstrap phase a vote from the constitutional committee is sufficient to change the protocol parameters, a committee vote together with a sufficient pool vote is sufficient to initiate a hard fork, info actions are available, and no other actions are possible. CIP-1694 on info actions and the bootstrap phase
- The Eternl DRep Committee voted no on the pool target question in epoch 518, writing that raising the parameter would only raise Cardano's operational costs without adding any real value, and that the network had run stably, securely and with sufficient decentralisation for over four years. the rationale of the Eternl DRep Committee on the pool target question
- Chris of Straightpool voted no on the pool target question in epoch 520, writing that the reward sharing scheme should be discussed and addressed as a whole, for instance with a minimum variable fee, which would be far more productive than manipulating the parameter in isolation. the rationale of Chris of Straightpool on the pool target question
- HeptaSean voted no on the pool target question in epoch 520, writing that the action is poorly written, that its supporting links leave the impression of a pure promotion stunt, that it is not sure Cardano can sustain 500 pools, let alone 1,000, and that a better reward sharing scheme is needed. the rationale of HeptaSean on the pool target question
- InputEndorsers changed its vote on the pool target question to no in epoch 519, writing that the Cardano Foundation as a committee member had called the action unconstitutional, that it agreed there was a lack of relevant supporting materials, and that governance actions should respect the required form. the rationale of InputEndorsers on the pool target question
- A pool can take stake beyond its saturation point, but its rewards stop increasing once it is saturated. the Cardano documentation on pledging and rewards
- Hephaestus Stake Pool voted yes on the pool target question in epoch 520, writing that the parameter sets the saturation point of a pool, that the saturation point was about 64M ada when the parameter was raised to 500 in December 2020 and is about 74M ada now, that a raise should not be as drastic as the 1,000 often put forward, and that a step to 588 would reset the saturation point to December 2020 levels. the rationale of Hephaestus Stake Pool on the pool target question
- HAZEL, a stake pool, voted yes on the pool target question in epoch 519, writing that it had voted no on raising the parameter to 1,000 in an earlier poll, that it favours an intermediate step to 750, and that a large portion of held ada is inactive, so doubling the parameter would cost many holders their rewards, often over extended periods. the rationale of HAZEL on the pool target question
- The Cardano Japan Council found the pool target question unconstitutional as a committee member in epoch 520, writing that an information action may record sentiment without committing to changes, but that this one, which discusses a change to K, lacks the necessary foundational research and objective indicators the interim constitution requires for a parameter change. the rationale of the Cardano Japan Council on the pool target question
- The Intersect Constitutional Council found the pool target question not constitutional in epoch 520 for lack of sufficient rationale, writing that its supporting material, a link to Atrium Labs, a video by Atrium Labs and an educational post by Atrium Labs, is not sufficiently relevant to the question asked, and that the council had neither supported nor opposed any increase or decrease of the parameter. the rationale of the Intersect Constitutional Council on the pool target question
- The Eastern Cardano Council abstained on the pool target question in epoch 520, writing that the action states it is no suggestion of what the parameters should be, so it does not measure sentiment for another governance action enacted on chain and the committee should abstain. the rationale of the Eastern Cardano Council on the pool target question
- The note of thanks thanks Input Output, EMURGO and the Cardano Foundation for bringing Cardano into the world and states that it seeks no change on chain or off it, directly or indirectly. the document behind the note of thanks
- The document of the first filing, at the renamed address in Intersect's repository, carries the same title and abstract as the cost model update filed in epoch 519: an update to the Plutus V3 cost model for the primitives available after the hard fork to protocol version 10, with existing settings unchanged. the document behind the first filing, at its renamed address
- Intersect's governance actions repository lists the first filing as a protocol parameter update for the Plutus cost model and records that shortly after submission it was found that, if enacted, it would not have the desired on chain effect, so its metadata address was broken on purpose by renaming the directory it pointed at. Intersect's repository entry for the first filing
- The cost model update asks for cost model entries for 12 new Plutus primitives, bitwise and cryptographic hashing operations, that the hard fork to protocol version 10 would make available, with existing cost model settings unchanged. Its document records that Intersect's Parameter Committee had recommended the change and Intersect's Technical Steering Committee had ratified it unanimously. the document behind the cost model update
- The rename signal states that the Intersect Hard Fork Working Group proposes to name the next Cardano hard fork in memory of Matthew Plomin, a community contributor who died in November 2024. the document behind the rename signal