Governance ReviewNo. 4Epochs 523 to 52520 Nov 2024 to 5 Dec 2024
Intersect's Plutus V3 cost model update is ratified on its second filing
Intersect's second Plutus V3 cost model submission was ratified after its first attempt failed to specify the intended changes. The update set prices for twelve new operations ahead of the coming hard fork, with approval resting solely with the constitutional committee under the bootstrap rules.
Intersect’s first filing expires, the second is ratified
Intersect’s first filing expired at the start of epoch 525, and its second filing of the same update to the Plutus V3 cost model was ratified at that boundary. The coming hard fork to protocol version 10 would add 12 new operations to Plutus, the language Cardano smart contracts are written in, most of them for working on individual bits and one a hash function Bitcoin uses. A script may call an operation only once the cost model gives it a price, and the update added prices for the 12 while leaving every existing price unchanged.
Intersect’s first filing was submitted in epoch 518. Intersect’s governance actions repository records that the action, if enacted, would not have had the desired effect on chain. Intersect then broke its metadata address on purpose by renaming the directory it pointed at, which is why the data holds no title for it. The document still sits at the renamed address, with the same title and abstract as the second filing. The Intersect Constitutional Council wrote that, as it understood it, the change had been submitted from an older node version that discarded the entries a newer one would have kept, and the Cardano Atlantic Council that the action “does not propose any changes to the network parameters”.
Five members found it unconstitutional: the Cardano Atlantic Council and the Eastern Cardano Council in epoch 520, the Cardano Foundation and Emurgo in epoch 521, and the Intersect Constitutional Council in epoch 524. The Eastern Cardano Council and Emurgo each cited “the absence of sufficient rationale”, as the address the action carried returned no document when they voted. Input Output and the Cardano Japan Council did not vote, and with no member finding it constitutional the action expired at the start of epoch 525.
Plutus V3 Cost Model Parameter Changes Prior to Chang#2, the second filing, was submitted in epoch 519 and ratified at the start of epoch 525. In the bootstrap phase a committee vote alone was sufficient to change protocol parameters, so the table under this article shows no DRep share for either filing. By the end of epoch 524 five members had found it constitutional: the Eastern Cardano Council in epoch 521, Input Output in epoch 522, the Cardano Foundation in epoch 523, and the Cardano Atlantic Council and the Intersect Constitutional Council in epoch 524. With seven active members and no abstainer, five yes votes were above the committee’s 66.7% threshold. The Cardano Japan Council and Emurgo added yes votes in epoch 525, after that boundary.
Voting yes, the Cardano Atlantic Council wrote that the changes matched what had been circulated off chain and had been deployed safely to the test networks, and Input Output that enabling Plutus V3 features was “a valid purpose” for a change to technical parameters. Emurgo cited three guardrails of the interim constitution: cost model values must be set by benchmarking on a reference architecture, the cost model must be updated when new primitives are introduced, and values should not be negative.
Intersect’s Hard Fork Working Group proposes the name Plomin
Rename the Chang 2 Hard Fork to the Plomin Hard Fork was the only proposal open to a DRep vote in these three epochs. Intersect filed it in epoch 522 for its Hard Fork Working Group, with Adam Dean and Adam Rusch as authors, to give the coming hard fork, then called Chang 2, the name of Matthew Plomin, a community contributor who died in November 2024, as the previous one had been named after Phil Chang. As an information action it closes without ratification, and its voting ran to the start of epoch 529.
DReps cast 71 votes in epoch 523
The 71 DRep votes of epoch 523 were the most in any epoch since epoch 508. Across the three epochs DReps cast 126 votes, pools 44 and committee members 8. Neither filing holds a DRep or pool vote, so the DRep and pool votes all went to the rename signal. At epoch 525, 569 DReps held ₳1.60B of delegated power, ₳158.8M more than at epoch 523 and the highest reading since epoch 508. DReps with a vote in the previous twelve epochs rose from 163 to 181, and the share of the ten largest DReps fell from 46.8% to 45.7%. The treasury reading rose ₳9.0M to ₳1.61B, with no withdrawal paid from it.
DRep votes cast per epoch, epochs 508 to 525
With superseded votes included
Decided in this window
| Action | Outcome | DRep yes |
|---|---|---|
| A parameter change without a title in the record | Expired 525 | n/a |
| Plutus V3 Cost Model Parameter Changes Prior to Chang#2 | Ratified 525 | n/a |
n/a: DReps had no vote on this action under the rules then in force.
Open at the close of the window
| Action | Status | DRep yes |
|---|---|---|
| Rename the Chang 2 Hard Fork to the Plomin Hard Fork | Voting ends at the start of epoch 529 | n/a |
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 523
- ₳1.45B
- Delegated to DReps, at the start of epoch 525
- ₳1.60B
- Votes cast in the window, superseded votes included
- 178
- DReps whose final vote fell in the window
- 112
- Treasury, at the start of epoch 523
- ₳1,601.4M
- Treasury, at the start of epoch 525
- ₳1,610.3M
- Committee shares are yes votes over the members active at the decision minus those who abstained. A member who does not vote at all is not an abstainer and lowers the share. That DRep and pool votes were no part of the requirement for these parameter changes comes from the bootstrap rules of CIP-1694, cited under the sources below, not from the record, which stores a DRep share of zero beside a 67% bar for both. The table therefore shows no share for them rather than a nought.
- What both filings asked for, and why the first was abandoned, is read from their documents and from Intersect's governance actions repository, named under the sources below. The record stores no title and no text for the first one, because its metadata address was broken on purpose. The committee reasons quoted are the published rationales of the members named, cited under the sources below, and say nothing about those who published none.
- The record dates five of the seven committee yes votes on the ratified change to epochs 521 to 524 and the other two to epoch 525, the epoch at whose start it was ratified. Five of seven active members with no abstainer was already above the committee threshold, so the ratification is described as resting on the five earlier votes and the two later ones as later votes.
- The rename signal is not decided here. The record holds no per epoch vote timeline for it in this window, and the DRep and pool votes of the window are attributed to it only because neither parameter change holds a DRep or pool vote. It had three more epochs to run, so the record holds no share for it from inside this window, only a tally read after it closed.
- Window vote and distinct voter totals for epochs 523 to 525 cover all three roles, include superseded votes and exclude votes without a block time. DRep vote counts per epoch and the count of recently voting DReps exclude votes without a block time. Delegated power excludes the predefined delegation options.
Sources and further reading
14 sources, open the list
- The Intersect Constitutional Council found the first filing unconstitutional in epoch 524 for missing rationale and for not containing the changes the proposal intended, writing that the anchored file was no longer to be found and that, as it understood it, the changes had been submitted on an older node version which discarded the entries a newer version would have carried. It noted that this was the first governance action Intersect had submitted and that the council is a separate body from the Technical Steering Committee, which had requested the change. the rationale of the Intersect Constitutional Council on the first filing
- The Eastern Cardano Council found the first filing unconstitutional in epoch 520 for the absence of sufficient rationale, since the interim constitution requires a legible format with a link to documented off chain content and the anchor address returned no document when it voted. the rationale of the Eastern Cardano Council on the first filing
- Emurgo found the first filing unconstitutional in epoch 521 for the absence of sufficient rationale, writing that the anchor address the action carried returned no document when it voted. the rationale of Emurgo on the first filing
- The Cardano Atlantic Council found the first filing unconstitutional in epoch 520 because, owing to an issue with its submission, it proposed no change to the network parameters at all, in conflict with its stated goal and with the requirement that an on chain action be identical to its off chain version. the rationale of the Cardano Atlantic Council on the first filing
- The Intersect Constitutional Council found the cost model change constitutional in epoch 524, writing that it updates the cost model to enable new Plutus primitives in protocol version 10, that the Parameter Committee of Intersect had recommended it and its Technical Steering Committee had ratified it unanimously, that the Technical Steering Committee at Intersect had submitted it, and that existing settings are not changed. the rationale of the Intersect Constitutional Council on the cost model change
- Emurgo found the cost model change constitutional in epoch 525, citing the guardrails that cost model values must be set by benchmarking on a reference architecture, that the cost model must be updated if new primitives are introduced, and that cost model values should not be negative. the rationale of Emurgo on the cost model change
- The Cardano Atlantic Council found the cost model change constitutional in epoch 524, writing that the changes match what was circulated off chain, that the rationale provides technical review, benchmarking and parameter committee endorsement, and that the update had been deployed safely to the test networks. the rationale of the Cardano Atlantic Council on the cost model change
- Input Output found the cost model change constitutional in epoch 522, writing that it enables features of Plutus V3 and maintains current functionality, a valid purpose for a change to technical parameters under the interim constitution. the rationale of Input Output on the cost model change
- The committee positions on the cost model change record a yes vote from the Cardano Japan Council, cast in epoch 525. the committee vote of the Cardano Japan Council on the cost model change
- 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, and information actions are available. No other actions are possible in that phase. CIP-1694 on the bootstrap phase
- The ratified change asked for cost model entries for 12 new Plutus primitives that the coming hard fork to protocol version 10 would enable, bitwise operations and a hash function that Bitcoin uses, so that scripts could actually call them. The prices of every existing primitive were left untouched. The document records that the Parameter Committee of Intersect had recommended the change and its Technical Steering Committee had ratified it unanimously before it was filed. the document behind the ratified cost model change
- The document of the first filing, at the renamed address in Intersect's repository, carries the same title and abstract as the ratified change: an update to the Plutus 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 records for the first filing that shortly after submission the action was found not to have the desired effect on chain if enacted, and that its metadata address was therefore broken on purpose by renaming the directory it pointed at. Intersect's repository entry for the first filing
- The rename signal, filed by Intersect's Hard Fork Working Group with Adam Dean and Adam Rusch named as authors, asks for the coming hard fork, called Chang 2, to be named in memory of Matthew Plomin, a community contributor who died in November 2024, following the naming of the previous one after Phil Chang, and places the name in a tradition of naming hard forks in memory of contributors to Cardano. the document behind the rename signal