Governance ReviewNo. 8Epochs 538 to 5413 Feb 2025 to 23 Feb 2025
DReps and all seven committee members ratify Cardano's constitution
Cardano's new constitution was ratified in epoch 541 with all seven interim committee members finding it constitutional. DRep supporters including Pi Lanningham accepted faults they wanted revised later, while opponents questioned the treasury safeguards and how much influence participants had over the final text.
The constitution is ratified at the start of epoch 541
Cardano Constitution to Replace the Interim Constitution was ratified at the start of epoch 541 and took effect at the start of epoch 542. Its stored tally records 385 DRep yes votes, 22 no and 6 abstain, 84.9% of DRep power against a 75% bar, with ₳3.06B of power on the yes votes and ₳80.6M on the no. Stake pools have no vote on a constitution.
DRep power cast on the constitution, by epoch of the vote
In millions of ada, superseded votes included
All seven members of the interim committee found it constitutional: the Cardano Atlantic Council, Input Output and the Cardano Foundation in epoch 539, and the Eastern Cardano Council, the Cardano Japan Council, the Intersect Constitutional Council and EMURGO in epoch 540. The Intersect Constitutional Council wrote that the text in the action is identical to the version voted on in Buenos Aires and Nairobi, checked by comparing the hashes of both documents and against photographs of the voting results in the convention hall. Input Output went through the six criteria the interim constitution sets for ratifying its replacement and recorded how each was met. The Cardano Atlantic Council wrote that the process the interim constitution laid out had been followed through dozens of workshops to the conventions in Buenos Aires and Nairobi, where 95% of the delegates approved the text.
The action was put forward by the convention delegates and the Constitution Ratification Working Group of the Civics Committee of Intersect. Its document records 63 workshops held in 52 countries between July and October 2024 with more than 1,400 participants, which elected 63 voting delegates and 63 alternates, and a convention in December 2024 at which the delegates approved the final text by a 95% margin. It was filed in epoch 537, on 30 January 2025, one day before the interim constitution’s deadline for submitting its replacement on chain, and the new text carries an amendment process for its own revision.
Pi Lanningham votes yes despite faults, HeptaSean votes no
YUTA, the DRep with the most delegated power at epoch 541, voted yes in epoch 537, writing that the text “prevents arbitrary interpretation” and that rejecting it “risks costly reconstitution”. The Eternl DRep Committee called it “a living document”. Pi Lanningham voted yes in epoch 539 while listing “material faults that should be addressed in a future revision”, because “we could iterate on this forever and never reach consensus”. HOSKY wrote that the text reflects the will of the delegates at the convention in Argentina, that there are aspects it disagrees with, and that “compromise is essential”.
Rodrigo, who had attended the workshops in Buenos Aires and Santiago, wrote as a Chilean that seeking a perfect constitution had left the country “stuck with the old one”. Hephaestus Stake Pool voted yes with reservations about the process, including what it called the “shepherding” of the workshop conversations.
Tempo.Vote voted no in epoch 540, writing that the text “does not include adequate guardrails” against misuse or mismanagement of the treasury and calling the handling of treasury withdrawals its most glaring issue. HeptaSean voted no the same epoch because proposals for “a leaner and less ambiguous constitution” had been sidelined at the workshops and the convention, with only minor corrections allowed. The DRep $brock voted no in epoch 538 because a technology based constitution should not rest on “subjective interpretation of what is ‘reasonable’”, concerns it wrote had been raised weeks before submission. Cardano Advocate voted no in epoch 540 over the one token one vote model, which it wrote makes governance exclusive for newcomers.
A proposal to lower the treasury cut to 10% is filed
Decrease Treasury Tax from 20% to 10%, filed in epoch 539, asks to lower the treasury cut, the share of each epoch’s rewards from the reserves and fees that goes to the treasury before stakers are paid, from 20% to 10%. Its document lists no author and argues that the 20% was set at the launch of Shelley and never reassessed, that halving it would raise staking rewards by about 12.5%, and that the new constitution permits a treasury cut between 10% and 30%. It needed 67% of DRep power and two thirds of the committee, with no pool vote. Votes cast on it in epoch 540 carried ₳813.1M of DRep power against it and ₳312.0M for it. Voting on it ran until the start of epoch 546.
DReps with a recent vote rise to 363
DReps cast 187 votes in epoch 540, the most in one epoch up to then, and the count of DReps with a vote in the previous twelve epochs rose from 251 at epoch 538 to 363 at epoch 541, also the most up to then. The window recorded 413 votes, 404 from DReps and 9 from committee members, superseded votes included, and 296 DReps cast their final vote in it. The power delegated to DReps rose ₳402.1M to ₳3.64B, the highest reading up to then, held by 766 DReps at epoch 541. The ten largest held 43.2% of it at epoch 541, their smallest share up to then. The treasury reading rose ₳13.2M to ₳1.68B, with nothing paid out of it.
Decided in this window
| Action | Outcome | DRep yes |
|---|---|---|
| Cardano Constitution to Replace the Interim Constitution | Ratified 541 | 84.9% |
Open at the close of the window
| Action | Status | DRep yes |
|---|---|---|
| Decrease Treasury Tax from 20% to 10% | Voting ends at the start of epoch 546 | 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 538
- ₳3.24B
- Delegated to DReps, at the start of epoch 541
- ₳3.64B
- Votes cast in the window, superseded votes included
- 413
- DReps whose final vote fell in the window
- 296
- Treasury, at the start of epoch 538
- ₳1,668.5M
- Treasury, at the start of epoch 541
- ₳1,681.7M
- 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. Committee shares are yes votes over the members active at the decision minus those who abstained.
- The 84.9% is the tally as stored today, not a reading reconstructed at the ratification boundary. It includes votes dated to epoch 541 itself, after that boundary, so it is the closing state of the vote and not necessarily the state at the moment it was ratified.
- Which side met its bar last is not established here. The epochs of the committee votes are known, but no DRep share is reconstructed for the earlier boundaries, so the chronology is described without claiming that the committee was the last step.
- Committee members are named by the hot key each vote was cast with, and EMURGO, the Intersect Constitutional Council and Input Output also name themselves in their rationales.
- How the constitution was drafted and who put it forward, and what the treasury tax proposal argued, are read from the proposals' own texts, named under the sources below. No clause by clause comparison of the two constitutions was made for this edition.
- The treasury tax proposal is submitted here and not decided here, so no DRep share from inside this window is given for it, only a tally read after it closed. Vote power per epoch is DRep power at the epoch of the vote and does not reconcile to a final tally.
- Votes cast is every vote of epochs 538 to 541 across all three roles, superseded votes included. DRep vote counts per epoch and the count of recently voting DReps exclude votes without a block time. Delegated power and the share of the ten largest DReps exclude the predefined delegation options. The reasons quoted are the published rationales of the voters named, cited under the sources below, and say nothing about voters who published none.
Sources and further reading
21 sources, open the list
- YUTA voted yes on the constitution in epoch 537, writing that it clarifies rules, prevents arbitrary interpretation and strengthens financial protections, and that rejecting it would risk a costly reconstitution. the rationale of YUTA on the constitution
- The Eternl DRep Committee voted yes on the constitution, calling it a living document and the foundation of community driven governance, and a prerequisite for Cardano's development in the year ahead. the rationale of the Eternl DRep Committee on the constitution
- Pi Lanningham voted yes on the constitution in epoch 539, writing that it has material faults that should be addressed in a future revision, that none of them violate its values, and that iterating forever would never reach consensus, so forward progress with something mostly good would foster a culture of revising it. the rationale of Pi Lanningham on the constitution
- HOSKY voted yes on the constitution, writing that it reflects the will of the delegates who took part in the convention in Argentina, that there are aspects it personally disagrees with, that compromise is essential, and that the document allows future amendments. the rationale of HOSKY on the constitution
- Hephaestus Stake Pool voted yes on the constitution after much deliberation and with reservations about the process, acknowledging the delegates and workshop attendees who fought to have their voices heard, often in the face of what it called serious shepherding of the conversations. the rationale of Hephaestus Stake Pool on the constitution
- Rodrigo voted yes on the constitution, writing that it had taken part in workshops in Buenos Aires and Santiago, that the effort was global if not perfect, and, as a Chilean, that the search for a perfect constitution in its own country had left people stuck with the old one, so progress matters more than perfection. the rationale of Rodrigo on the constitution
- Socious voted yes on the constitution, writing that it is significantly better than the interim one in content and process, and that its internal discussion of ten participants produced six yes votes, four abstentions and no votes against. the rationale of Socious on the constitution
- AKYO voted yes on the constitution, writing that it is clearer than the interim one, that the added fundamental principles make it easier to understand, and that it now states a maximum total supply of ada of 45,000,000,000. the rationale of AKYO on the constitution
- Cerkoryn voted yes on the constitution, writing that the draft is a major step up from the interim text even though the constitution and the tools that inform delegators need work, and that the interim text might require this delegate approved draft to be in place before other drafts can be proposed. the rationale of Cerkoryn on the constitution
- Tempo.Vote voted no on the constitution in epoch 540, writing that it does not include adequate guardrails against misuse or mismanagement of the treasury, and that the handling of treasury withdrawals is its most glaring issue. the rationale of Tempo.Vote on the constitution
- HeptaSean voted no on the constitution in epoch 540, writing that it was dissatisfied with how the text was pushed through, that proposals for a leaner and less ambiguous constitution were sidelined at the workshops and the convention, and that only minor corrections were allowed. the rationale of HeptaSean on the constitution
- The DRep $brock voted no on the constitution in epoch 538, writing that a technology based constitution should not be left to subjective interpretation of what is reasonable but should be black and white, and that these concerns had been raised weeks before submission. the rationale of $brock on the constitution
- Cardano Advocate voted no on the constitution in epoch 540, writing that the one token one vote model is not representative of the will of the community and makes governance exclusive for newcomers, and that a fairer model considering contribution, time and knowledge should have been built in from the start. the rationale of Cardano Advocate on the constitution
- The Intersect Constitutional Council found the constitution constitutional as a committee member in epoch 540, writing that the proposed text linked in the action is identical to the final off chain version voted on in Buenos Aires and Nairobi in December 2024, verified by comparing the hashes of both documents and cross referenced against photographs of the voting results on the screens of the convention hall in Buenos Aires. the rationale of the Intersect Constitutional Council on the constitution
- Input Output found the constitution constitutional as a committee member in epoch 539, writing that the interim constitution's appendix on ratification sets out six criteria for the first post interim constitution and reiterating how each was fulfilled, beginning with the global workshops held in the second half of 2024. the rationale of Input Output on the constitution
- The Cardano Atlantic Council found the constitution acceptable as a committee member in epoch 539, writing that the interim constitution's appendix laid out the transition through consultation, drafting and ratification, followed through dozens of workshops and the conventions in Buenos Aires and Nairobi, where 95% of the delegates approved the text. the rationale of the Cardano Atlantic Council on the constitution
- EMURGO found the constitution constitutional as a committee member in epoch 540, writing in its own name that the proposal followed the required due process and that the criterion for ratifying the final constitution set out in the interim constitution's second appendix is met. the rationale of EMURGO on the constitution
- The Cardano Japan Council voted yes on the constitution as a committee member in epoch 540. the vote of the Cardano Japan Council on the constitution
- The proposal records how the text was produced and who put it forward: 2 trial and 63 constitutional workshops held between July and October 2024 in 52 countries with more than 1,400 participants, 63 voting delegates and 63 alternates elected by the workshop attendees, and the delegates approving the final text at a convention in December 2024 by a 95% margin, after which the delegates and the Constitution Ratification Working Group of the Civics Committee of Intersect put the action forward. the document behind the constitution proposal
- The same document states that the interim constitution was meant to be temporary, held only the minimum the first upgrade needed, and required its replacement to be submitted on chain no later than 31 January 2025, which this proposal did on 30 January. It also states that the rules, parameters and guardrails of governance had to be set out in a constitution, and that the new text carries an amendment process for its own revision. the constitution proposal, on what it replaces
- The treasury tax proposal, whose document lists no author, argues that the 20% share was set at the launch of Shelley and never reassessed, that the treasury cut is applied to each epoch's rewards from the reserves and fees before they are distributed to stakers, that halving it would raise staking rewards by about 12.5%, from roughly 4.0% to 4.5% a year, and that the new constitution permits a treasury cut between 10% and 30%. It cites the interim constitution alongside the new text, and names an earlier Plutus cost model update as procedural precedent. the document behind the treasury tax proposal