CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.0
219 DReps voted · 87 with a rationale · 8 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Abstain584.2M ₳Rationale
Yoroi DRep votes to ABSTAIN on the governance action titled Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution v2.0.
RationaleWe value the effort to improve the Constitution, especially the clarifications and cleanup of definitions.
At the same time, removing the budget info action weakens financial transparency around treasury withdrawals.The changes to the auto-abstain safeguard reduce clarity on its role, and these updates weren’t broadly discussed with the community. The proposal moved on-chain while feedback was still being raised, signaling that consensus has not yet been reached
Conclusion
Abstaining allows Yoroi DRep to recognize the improvements made, while also signaling that more discussion and ecosystem input are needed before proposing such important constitutional changes. We encourage continued dialogue and active participation from all stakeholders to build stronger alignment for future updates. - Yes435.8M ₳Rationale
I'm voting YES on [CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.0].
While there are many areas for improvement, the biggest reason is to support builders more efficiently while strengthening the protection of financial soundness.
CONSTITUTION v2.0 makes no major changes to the text other than adding and relaxing conditions for treasury withdrawals and removing Budget Information Actions.
In exchange for removing the Budget Information Actions, several disclosure requirements have been added for treasury withdrawals.
However, most of this is merely clarification of the items to be disclosed, and nothing will significantly increase the burden on proposers. For treasury withdrawals totaling less than 1 million ada within two years, several burdensome conditions, such as audit requirements, have been removed.
[ CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.0 ]にYESを投票します。
多くの改善点が残っていると思いますが最大の理由はビルダーをより効率的に支援すると同時に、財務健全性の保護を強化しているためです。
CONSTITUTION v2.0 は、トレジャリー引き出しの条件追加および緩和とBudget情報アクションの削除の以外の条文に大きな変更はありません。
Budget情報アクションが削除される代わりにトレジャリー引き出しの要件について、いくつか開示すべき要素が追加されています。
ただし、ほとんどは記載項目の明確化であり、提案者の大きな負担増につながる項目はありません。
また、トレジャリー引き出しに関して、2年以内に合計100万ADA以下のトレジャリー引き出しに関しては大幅に監査要件などが除外されています。 - Abstain293M ₳Rationale
Summary
EMURGO as DRep votes to ABSTAIN on the governance action to ratify the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution v2.0.
Rationale
We appreciate the effort to improve the Constitution through amendment, especially the attempt to clarify definitions and introduce additional oversight standards. These updates show a genuine commitment to strengthening governance and moving the ecosystem forward.
At the same time, we remain concerned with both the process and content. The proposal moved on-chain while significant feedback was still emerging, showing that broader consensus has not yet been reached. On substance, removing the budget Info Action weakens the link between treasury withdrawals and long-term priorities. In addition, changes to the auto-abstain safeguard create ambiguity around the influence of treasury funds on governance outcomes.
Conclusion
Given these open concerns and the need for wider deliberation, EMURGO chooses to abstain at this stage. This decision reflects a call for further discussion and refinement before bringing forward such an important revision. - Yes254.7M ₳No rationale
- No222.9M ₳Rationale
TL;DR: EDC voted NO on gov_action1ypajyms3pcfmkx93r87dxy6jpc8u6pst90ylhxj7t0rwjj43puasq0x9jrw;
Process of going through the changes:
General: Have an LLM check the grammar and spelling, please; e.g. Block vs block, missing spaces after commas etc.
- 24 Delegated Representative (DRep). The individual or entity registered to vote with respect to on-chain governance actions for its own behalf or on behalf of other owners of ada.
- 24 Delegated Representative (DRep). The individual or entity registered to vote with respect to on-chain governance actions for its own behalf or on behalf of other Ada Holders.
- 26 Net Change Limit. Means the maximum amount or percentage by which the Cardano Treasury may not be reduced by in a given period.
- 26 Net Change Limit. Means the maximum allowed amount of Lovelace removed from the Cardano Treasury in a given period.
- 28 Stake Pool Operator (SPO). An individual or entity that manifests intent through the signed transactions of a Stake Pool.
- 28 Stake Pool Operator (SPO). An individual or entity who directly controls the cold key(s) to a Cardano block producing node.
30 Block(s) vs block(s)
87 - Three independent voting bodies - DReps, SPOs, and the CC - participate in on-chain voting; anyone holding multiple roles must publicly disclose such overlaps before engaging in any on-chain governance actions.
--- This is not enforcable. An anonymous DRep could also be an anonymous SPO.Now leaning towards ABSTAIN.
92 - DReps may vote on all types of governance actions.
--- A bit of a non-sensical one. While they can vote on everything, hardforks are not determined by them.94 - DReps shall ensure that any compensation received in connection with their activities as a DRep is publicly disclosed in a timely manner through relevant governance communication channels.
--- Again, not enforcable. What do you want to do, if you find out a DRep did not disclose it? Ban them by ledger rule?95 - DReps shall not offer or provide compensation to an Ada Holder or in exchange for being appointed as a DRep or for voting on their behalf.
--- Again, not enforcable. Same as 94.101 - SPOs shall publicly disclose if they are simultaneously voting as a DRep on the same governance actions.
--- This is not enforcable. An anonymous DRep could also be an anonymous SPO.Now leaning towards NO.
103 vs 99. Almost same content, can that be shortened?
106 - ... The document hosted by such a URL shall be immutable in nature and incapable of being altered after submission of the proposed governance action for on-chain voting.
--- This reduces the hosting options dramatically. As long as the hash is correct and the document wasn't altered, the action should be valid.135 - Treasury Withdrawal Recipients shall use treasury withdrawals for the purpose set out in Section 7, paragraph 1 above.
--- Makes no sense.- 148 - ... owners of ada.
- 148 - ... Ada Holders.
153 - ... no confidence will result.
--- No proper English.357/359/1141 ada holders vs Ada Holders. (It's a definition and should be capitalized). Please check 'owners of ada' and 'ada holders' in the whole document and replace it with Ada Holders.
- No174.6M ₳Rationale
I agree with the changes in principle, but I don't like the idea of replacing the info action with a new "roadmap" info action as I believe this will be too limiting and too prone to have the process captured and centralized
- Yes165.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes120.2M ₳Rationale
The Cardano Foundation, as a DRep, votes YES on the New Constitution GA. We believe it is an improvement to the current version. Our vote is based on a thorough review, in line with the principle that the Constitution is a living document designed for periodic refinement by the community.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
This governance action has generated significant community discussion, much of which is focused on the drafting process, as it did not include global workshops and voting at a convention. We believe that governance documents for a decentralized infrastructure like Cardano should be improved incrementally and that any community member should be allowed to make suggestions. While in-person processes have their place and can be useful, we do not agree that this should be a requirement for any proposed changes.
Consequently, we focused on evaluating the substance of a proposal and are voting on whether it represents a net positive for the Cardano ecosystem. In our assessment this proposal followed the amendment process as it is currently required by the Constitution. While there were no workshops or conventions, the drafting process involved months of public, asynchronous feedback via shared documents where anyone could contribute. We welcome further refinement of the constitutional amendment process and we see the Civics Committee as a potential body to lead this work. The Cardano Foundation is eager to collaborate with them to explore a structured process for future amendments. However, at this stage we do not wish to vote against an amendment which we believe is a net positive for the system simply because it did not follow the previous drafting process.
Assessment of the Proposed Version
The new version makes several key enhancements that we believe will make Cardano's governance more effective:
A More Efficient Treasury Process: The proposal streamlines the treasury process by removing the separate "budget info action" and integrating its requirements directly into a single, more comprehensive treasury withdrawal governance action type. This reduces bureaucracy while maintaining scrutiny, as the new draft introduces stricter informational requirements for all treasury withdrawals. Some of these requirements will provide DReps with greater certainty as to who is receiving the withdrawal and what they intend to use it for, thereby providing better transparency for the ecosystem on the use of treasury funds.
Enhanced Clarity and Governance Hygiene: The draft introduces clearer definitions, fixes many inconsistencies, and removes outdated or unused clauses. These changes make the Constitution a more precise and self-contained document while reducing ambiguity for all governance participants.
Upholding Core Governance Principles: This update refines the Constitution's mechanics without altering the fundamental balance of power or the core roles of DReps, SPOs, and the Constitutional Committee.
The Cardano Foundation, as a DRep, votes YES on the New Constitution Governance Action. We see it as an incremental improvement that aligns with the core principle of the Constitution as a living document. This vote represents a principled decision to support progress and affirm that, in a decentralized ecosystem, constructive proposals should be judged on their substance and merit.
NOTE on 'Internal Voting':
The fields constitutional and unconstitutional below reflect the CF governance teams' individual opinions whether they are for or against the proposal.
Reason for this inconsistency is, that CIP-136 is at the moment only applicable to CC rationales, but we want to record the internal opinions of our DRep assessment transparently as well. - AbstainChanged92.2M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes11mo agoSuperseded
- Yes91.5M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I voted YES to adopt version 2.0 of the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution, replacing version 1.0.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
While many changes have been made, most are structural—streamlined wording, improved clarity, fixed typos, and the removal of redundancies.
The most significant update is the elimination of the requirement for a Budget Information Governance Action before a Withdrawal Governance Action. Removing this prerequisite will cut unnecessary bureaucracy and improve the efficiency of funding.
A few additional updates have also been introduced. Notably, for treasury withdrawals totaling under 1 million ADA within a two-year period, several previously burdensome requirements have been lifted. This adjustment streamlines the process for small-scale funding and reduces unnecessary constraints.I want to express my sincere gratitude to everyone who contributed to the amendment of the Constitution.
- Yes88.6M ₳Rationale
As a DRep and developer, I support this proposal. This revision does not introduce major changes; rather, it makes the current Constitution smarter. The removal of the budget info action is expected to improve the slowness of decision-making and reduce the burden on DReps, thereby improving the current wasteful flow. I believe this will enable the Cardano ecosystem to move forward more quickly.
Furthermore, regarding the removal of the recommended statement to include a DRep/SPO Code of Conduct, I believe there is no need to include in the Constitution matters that lack enforceability. It should be sufficient for individuals who consider it necessary to specify a code of conduct according to their own needs.
私はDRepおよび開発者としてこの提案を支持します。この改定に大幅な変更はなくむしろ現行の憲法をスマートにする変更になっています。バジェットインフォアクションの削除は意思決定の遅さを改善するものでありまたDRepの負担を軽減することが期待されているため、現在の無駄なフローを改善するものであると考えています。そしてカルダノエコシステムがより早く前進できるものと考えます。また、DRep/SPOの行動規範掲載の推奨文の削除においても、強制力が伴わない事象に対して憲法に掲載する必要性がなく、必要だと思う個人が必要性に応じて行動規範を明記するだけで良いと考えます。 - YesRevoted86M ₳Rationale
SIPO’s Voting Rationale
SIPO casts a Yes vote on the “CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.0.”
The reasons are as follows:
1. Clarification and Refinement
• The proposal fixes typos, improves consistency, and simplifies redundant wording.
• Key definitions have been clarified, making the constitution more coherent and easier to interpret.
2. Removal of Outdated Clauses
• Unused provisions such as the DRep/SPO Codes of Conduct are removed.
• This avoids unnecessary complexity and ensures that the constitution reflects current governance practices.
3. Improved Treasury Flexibility
• The requirement for a budget information action when withdrawing from the treasury has been removed.
• This allows faster, more flexible treasury operations while maintaining accountability.Conclusion
SIPO supports this constitutional amendment because it enhances clarity, transparency, and practical governance efficiency within the Cardano ecosystem.
⸻
SIPOの投票理由
SIPOは「CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.0」に対してYes票を投じます。
その理由は以下の通りです。
1. 憲法の明確化と整理
• 提案は、誤字や不整合を修正し、冗長な表現を簡潔化しています。
• 曖昧だった定義を明確化し、全体の読みやすさと一貫性を向上させています。
2. 不要条項の削除
• 実際には使われていないDRepやSPOの行動規範の条項を削除し、現実に即した構造にしています。
• これにより、憲法が実効性を持ち、形骸化を避けられると判断します。
3. 財務の柔軟性
• これまで必要とされていた「予算情報アクション」を伴う財務支出要件が撤廃され、トレジャリーからの引き出しがシンプルになります。
• これは意思決定と資金配分の柔軟性を高め、迅速な対応を可能にします。結論
SIPOは、この憲法改正がカルダノ・エコシステムにおける 透明性・明確性・実効性の向上 に資すると考え、Yes票を投じます。
Earlier votes
Yes10mo agoSuperseded
SIPO’s Voting Rationale
SIPO casts a Yes vote on the “CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.0.”
The reasons are as follows:
1. Clarification and Refinement
• The proposal fixes typos, improves consistency, and simplifies redundant wording.
• Key definitions have been clarified, making the constitution more coherent and easier to interpret.
2. Removal of Outdated Clauses
• Unused provisions such as the DRep/SPO Codes of Conduct are removed.
• This avoids unnecessary complexity and ensures that the constitution reflects current governance practices.
3. Improved Treasury Flexibility
• The requirement for a budget information action when withdrawing from the treasury has been removed.
• This allows faster, more flexible treasury operations while maintaining accountability.
4. Insights from Discussions with the Proposer
• From direct conversation, it was confirmed that the Cardano Foundation has no hidden agenda regarding this update.
• Their input was mainly practical, such as ensuring governance metadata remains immutable, to prevent errors seen in previous governance actions.
• Therefore, the amendment is neutral and focused on system improvement.
5. Context on Cardano Foundation and IOG Disputes
• Issues such as the “unreturned 300M ADA” and the Foundation’s role in Catalyst voting were highlighted as sources of past conflict.
• However, these disputes are not directly tied to this constitutional update. The proposal itself strengthens clarity and governance efficiency.Conclusion
SIPO supports this constitutional amendment because it enhances clarity, transparency, and practical governance efficiency within the Cardano ecosystem.
⸻
SIPOの投票理由
SIPOは「CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.0」に対してYes票を投じます。
その理由は以下の通りです。
1. 憲法の明確化と整理
• 提案は、誤字や不整合を修正し、冗長な表現を簡潔化しています。
• 曖昧だった定義を明確化し、全体の読みやすさと一貫性を向上させています。
2. 不要条項の削除
• 実際には使われていないDRepやSPOの行動規範の条項を削除し、現実に即した構造にしています。
• これにより、憲法が実効性を持ち、形骸化を避けられると判断します。
3. 財務の柔軟性
• これまで必要とされていた「予算情報アクション」を伴う財務支出要件が撤廃され、トレジャリーからの引き出しがシンプルになります。
• これは意思決定と資金配分の柔軟性を高め、迅速な対応を可能にします。
4. カルダノ財団とのやり取りからの確認
• 提案者との会話から、カルダノ財団が本改正に対して特別な「思惑」を持っているわけではなく、むしろ技術的な改善（特に「メタデータを不変化させる」などの実務的要望）が背景にあることが確認できました。
• よって、憲法改正そのものは中立的かつ改善的な内容であり、コミュニティに不利益をもたらすものではないと判断しました。
5. カルダノ財団とIOGの対立についての補足
• 提案者からの説明では、財団とIOGの間にある根本的な問題は「未還元ADAの扱い」と「Catalystへの関与」に起因するとのことです。
• しかし、この憲法改正にそれらの直接的な影響はなく、提案はむしろ憲法を健全にする方向性にあります。結論
SIPOは、この憲法改正がカルダノ・エコシステムにおける 透明性・明確性・実効性の向上 に資すると考え、Yes票を投じます。
- No84.3M ₳No rationale
- No77.7M ₳Rationale
治理必须简单直观。宪法更新必须清楚告知社区：这些改动会给你带来 1、2、3 个实际影响
将轻重不一的内容打包在一起投票，缺乏分案机制。修正错别字、定义调整等小修小补, 财政提款机制等涉及重大治理架构的改动，级别不一样
关键议题被遗漏。NCL等问题，未在此次版本中解决
- Yes76.8M ₳Rationale
To be honest, this isn't ideal from my perspective. The scope of changes proposed is too large. In the future I would prefer constitutional amendments to be extremely focused, ie. to change a single item. It's very hard to get community consensus on a bundle of proposed changes (ie. some voters might like one change, but dislike another and thus choose not to vote for it). The only way we can get rapid iteration is via many proposals that have small scope (if the change proposed is about a single item, and the majority of stake agrees with the single item change then it will be accepted). That said, redundancy in the current situation is so unbelievably bad (budget & withdrawals being separate proposals) and is wasting an immense amount of money & time for the ecosystem, that I am compelled to vote for this proposal simply because it removes the concept of budget info actions from the constitution.
- Yes75.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes75.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes74.5M ₳Rationale
This change removes the largely procedural Budget Information Action and allows the process to proceed with only the Withdrawal approval.
Previously, the process required two on-chain approvals — "Budget Information → Withdrawal" — which created significant burdens for both DReps and proposers, with limited practical benefits.In practice, the Budget Information Action often became a formal step without substantial impact before the Withdrawal approval. Under the revised process, necessary discussions and evaluations will take place off-chain or in appropriate forums, and the final decision will be made with a single on-chain approval.
I consider this a reasonable measure that will improve the overall efficiency of governance.
今回の変更は、形式的になっていた予算情報アクションを省き、Withdrawal承認のみで進められるようにするものです。従来は「予算情報 → Withdrawal」という二段階のオンチェーン承認が必要でしたが、これはDRepとしても、また提案者にとっても負担が大きく、実務的にはデメリットがありました。
この二段階形式は、事実上、予算情報アクションが形式的なステップに留まり、Withdrawal承認に至るまでの実質的な意味を持ちにくい構造になっていました。今回の改訂により、必要な議論や評価はオフチェーンや適切な場で行い、その結果を踏まえて一度だけオンチェーンで承認する流れに簡略化されます。
この変更は、ガバナンス全体の効率化につながる合理的な措置であると考えます。
- Yes73.1M ₳Rationale
I support this constitution as a beneficial "living document" designed to evolve via on-chain governance. This capacity for constant updates is crucial for the ecosystem. I would also like to thank YUTA and the community for their significant contributions.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I support this constitution as a beneficial advancement for Cardano. I welcome this update with the understanding that it is not a final, static document, but a foundational framework designed for continuous improvement.
The constitution itself is structured as a "living document" that is expected to evolve. It establishes a clear on-chain governance process for amendments, allowing it to adapt over time as new technical insights are gained and the needs of the ecosystem change. This capacity for constant updates is crucial, and I welcome this approach to governance.
I would also like to thank YUTA for his effort and the community for their contributions.
- Abstain69.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes62.7M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES. This update improves clarity and accessibility of the Constitution, removes outdated clauses, and simplifies processes without weakening decentralised checks and balances. Core safeguards - including DRep, SPO, and Constitutional Committee approvals - remain intact. While removing the Budget Info requirement reduces one procedural step for treasury withdrawals, overall transparency is maintained, and any issues can be addressed in future governance actions.
- NoRevoted50.4M ₳Rationale
New Constitution Draft Submission → No
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
As a DRep, I cast a No vote on the proposed New Constitution Governance Action (NCGA) for the following procedural and substantive reasons: Article VIII(1) strongly encourages that constitutional revisions be proposed after broad and inclusive discussion within the Cardano community. In this NCGA, no such community-wide forum was convened for review. Key stakeholders—including many DReps, SPOs, and CC members—encountered the draft only at the GA submission stage, without prior structured review or opportunity to propose amendments. The Info Action phase, designed to allow open community feedback and catch issues before binding votes, was completely bypassed. Even post-submission, substantial feedback and improvement suggestions continue to flow in, indicating the process was rushed and incomplete. The draft constitution fails to require that Treasury Withdrawal Governance Actions (TWGAs) undergo review by the Constitutional Committee at the Info stage—removing a critical constitutional compliance checkpoint. It omits a clear requirement for “Auto-Abstain” from vote participation by any stake address that receives Treasury funds, which is essential to prevent conflicts of interest and uphold Treasury neutrality. Other important guardrails—such as auditability and transparency mechanisms—have been diluted, undermining enforceability. Although the phrase “encourages” in Article VIII(1) is not a binding mandate, it forms a key part of the intended context of the amendment process. Submitting a fundamental constitutional rewrite without observing this expectation undermines both the legitimacy and procedural integrity of governance. Given both procedural shortfalls and substantive omissions, this NCGA does not meet the minimum standards for legitimacy. I therefore vote No. Any future proposal of this magnitude should include transparent, inclusive deliberation among the full community; Article-by-article review with adequate amendment time; and strong binding safeguards for Treasury neutrality and auditability. |Japanese version| --> 私はDRepとして、提案されている新憲法ガバナンスアクション（NCGA）に対して、手続的および内容面での理由から「No」票を投じます。第8条第1項は、憲法改正はカルダノコミュニティ全体での幅広く包括的な議論を経て提案されることを強く推奨していますが、本NCGAではそのような全体フォーラムは開催されていません。多くのDRep、SPO、CCメンバーを含む主要関係者が、事前の構造化された審査や修正提案の機会もなく、GA提出段階で初めて草案を目にしました。本来、拘束力のある投票前にコミュニティ全体のフィードバックを受け付け、問題を洗い出すためのInfoアクション段階が完全に省略されています。提出後でさえ、多くの改善提案が寄せられており、プロセスが拙速かつ不完全であったことを示しています。また、この憲法草案は、トレジャリー引き出しガバナンスアクション（TWGA）について、Info段階で憲法委員会の審査を受ける要件を定めておらず、重要な憲法遵守チェックポイントが欠落しています。さらに、トレジャリー資金を受け取るステークアドレスが投票に参加することを防ぐための「Auto-Abstain」の明確な規定もありません。これは利益相反を防ぎ、トレジャリーの中立性を維持するために不可欠です。その他、監査性や透明性のメカニズムといった重要なガードレールも弱体化しており、実効性を損なっています。「推奨する」という文言は法的拘束力を持たないものの、改正プロセスの文脈を構成する重要な要素です。この期待を無視して憲法の抜本的書き換えを提出することは、ガバナンスの正当性と手続的整合性を損ないます。以上の手続的欠陥と内容面の欠落により、本NCGAは正当性の最低基準を満たしていません。よって、私はNo票を投じます。今後、この規模の提案を行う場合は、コミュニティ全体による透明かつ包括的な審議、十分な修正期間を伴う条文ごとのレビュー、そしてトレジャリーの中立性と監査性を確保する強制力あるガードレールを備えるべきです。
Earlier votes
No11mo agoSuperseded
New Constitution Draft Submission → No
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
As a DRep, I will vote a hard 'No' on the currently submitted New Constitution Governance Action. This proposal would be unconstitutional under Article VIII because the draft has not been sufficiently reviewed by community DReps, SPOs, and ICCs, and it even skipped the Info Action stage prior to submission as a GA. While the draft retains much of the high-level ethos of the current Constitution, it introduces several critical regressions in enforceability, transparency, and safeguards. These include the erosion of binding guardrails (e.g., Auto-Abstain and audit rules), loss of verifiability for Treasury neutrality, and increased interpretational ambiguity, particularly regarding proposal types and definitions. These changes weaken the enforceable integrity of Cardano governance. The Constitution represents a framework with both significant benefits and risks to the ecosystem, and any amendments require article-by-article debate and GA-based deliberation. For large-scale revisions like this, broad community discussion, sufficient time, and structured debate are essential before moving forward. As this Governance Action fails to meet those prerequisites, I have concluded my vote as a hard No.
- No50M ₳Rationale
Although I fully support some of the proposals in the new draft of the Constitution (for example, the removal of the preliminary Info action), other points - such as making oversight and reporting optional for amounts below 1M, or the disclosure of personal data - raise concerns for me and make me think this could have negative consequences. I may be wrong, but to confirm or refute this I would like to see a more detailed explanation of the proposed changes, with clear examples of what exactly they would lead to.\n\nIn addition, the current version of the Constitution contains errors that were not corrected in the proposed updated draft.\n\nAll of the above makes me vote No at this point, but I will be happy to vote Yes if clarifications are provided on the contentious points and the reasons preventing a positive vote are addressed.
- No49.5M ₳Rationale
Good effort but needs iteration. NCL and the need for change or removal is not addressed, info actions are a necessary function in governance, mingovaction cost of 100k ADA is not addressed are 3 examples. Additionally any changes to current constitution should require a larger feedback and debate mechanism amongst the broader community
- Yes48.6M ₳Rationale
This constitution while not perfect is the first TRULY COMMUNITY DRIVEN constitution that was openly developed and discussed. This is also a significant improvement from the current Constitution which was hastily ratified due to time constraint. We vote YES for this and expect Constitution to be continued to improved further after each iteration!
- Yes47.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes40.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes38.1M ₳Rationale
I voted in favor because very few voters actually pay attention to Info Actions, and their purpose can be achieved through alternative means. Treasury withdrawal proposals already provide the key information, making the extra Info Action step unnecessary.
- Abstain37.8M ₳No rationale
- NoChanged34.6M ₳Rationale
再度詳細を確認いたしました。以下の2点に疑問があり、投票を変更いたします。
・財務省の引き出しに対する予算情報アクション要件を削除
・古い規定(DRep/SPO行動規範など)を削除
憲法委員会で議論すべきことだと考えます。Earlier votes
Yes11mo agoSuperseded
- Abstain34.3M ₳Rationale
We are abstaining on this proposal. Constitutional amendments are an important process for the community, but in our view this proposal has not undergone sufficient debate. We believe that rather than forcing a Yes or No, it is more appropriate to abstain, leaving room for further discussion and for the community at large to make its judgment.
- Yes33.5M ₳Rationale
Voting YES on the Cardano Constitution v2.0. This update streamlines governance processes, strengthens treasury safeguards, improves clarity across definitions and procedures, and preserves Cardano’s core governance principles. It's a net positive step toward a more efficient and accountable system.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Rationale Statement
The Constitution v2.0 proposal introduces meaningful improvements without undermining Cardano’s foundation.
Streamlined Treasury Processes
Removing the budget Info Action requirement simplifies treasury withdrawals while retaining necessary oversight, audits, and Net Change Limits. This allows the community to fund initiatives more efficiently without sacrificing accountability.Stronger Treasury Safeguards
Every withdrawal must specify purpose, delivery timeline, cost breakdown, refund conditions, and recipient details. Large requests over 1M ADA require independent audits, designated administrators, and auditable undelegated accounts. These protections are clearer and more enforceable than in v1.0. Despite my own sudo-anonymous role, I fully support these strict requirements for anyone seeking treasury funds. Accountability for public resources is non-negotiable.Improved Clarity and Consistency
Expanded and refined defined terms bring precision to governance actions. Simplified language across Articles I–III ensures consistency and transparency, making it easier for the community, DReps, SPOs, and the Constitutional Committee to operate within clear rules.Clearer Guardrails
Appendix I now separates “must” rules from “should” guidelines, giving the community predictable enforcement while maintaining flexibility for complex situations.Simplified Roles for DReps and SPOs
By removing unenforceable codes of conduct, v2.0 clarifies expectations: DReps and SPOs must vote, disclose compensation, and avoid pay-for-delegation practices. This narrows their responsibilities to what is actionable and transparent.Transparency in Governance Actions
Governance proposals must follow a standardized and immutable format, including title, abstract, justification, and supporting materials. This reduces manipulation and improves accountability.Conclusion
Constitution v2.0 is a positive evolution of Cardano’s governance framework. It makes the system easier to navigate, introduces stronger treasury protections, and maintains safeguards that uphold decentralization and fiscal responsibility.
For these reasons, I will vote YES.
- No31.4M ₳Rationale
Reasons for opposing this proposal:
The changes are too drastic. There has been insufficient discussion within the community, and it is difficult to summarize multiple perspectives and determine whether the overall proposal should be approved or rejected. Each individual case should be examined more thoroughly. - Abstain30.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes27.9M ₳Rationale
After reviewing the proposed changes to the Cardano Constitution, I have decided to lean toward a YES vote on this proposal. I think that the changes are an improvement over the existing Constitution, but there is still a lot more to be desired.
The Good:
-Removal of the Budget Info Action and establishing the auditing/administrator/oversight requirements in the Treasury Withdrawal instead.
-Removing requirement for dRep Codes of Conduct (as these were generally unenforceable anyways).
-Adding a requirement for immutable URLs to governance actions.The Bad:
-Clarity on the NCL is still somewhat lacking.
-Staggering CC members. I'm not sure how this would work given that the ledger only recognizes a single CC at a time. Additionally, I don't think it is enforceable.
-Treasury withdrawals requiring the identity of the recipient. To me this seems like it would implement a hard KYC requirement and not allow pseudonymous community figures (i.e., Hosky, Cardano Whale, etc.) from ever proposing a treasury withdrawal.
-"DReps have voting power equal to the number of Lovelace delegated to them." This would prevent changes such as quadratic voting power, which I think is something that should be left open for exploration.
-Required disclosures for people who hold multiple roles (dRep, SPO, CC). Also required disclosures for compensation. I don't think these are enforceable. And if they were, it could be the case that a single dRep refusing to disclose something might make the entire governance action unconstitutional. - Yes27.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes26.3M ₳Rationale
After reading the changes (see https://most-brass-sun.quicknode-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafybeiezgj4gu6fyxfpnu7h7cgrhfyyvbn4ve72ytpxrv7cmatbok32e4m, this version is much clearer and I am voting YES.
- Abstain26.1M ₳Rationale
N/A
- Yes25.3M ₳Rationale
I have voted YES on the current proposal to update the Cardano Constitution. The updated Constitution introduces further clarity, streamlines efficiency while favoring agile governance.
- No23.5M ₳Rationale
Hard disagree on forced identity and location disclosures. There's no reason to force ecosystem builders to lower their personal security to obtain funds.
- No22M ₳No rationale
- Yes21.5M ₳No rationale
- No21.5M ₳Rationale
First off, I would like to commend Yuta on the efforts and the intent behind this first update to the community-approved Constitution. I respect the efforts to reduce ambiguity and to improve on what has been created so far. However, I am unable to support this proposed update at this time.
Article VIII Section 1 states that the Constitution “should be treated as a living document” and the community “encouraged to periodically review and debate its provisions” and while this has been done to some degree so far , I feel that it falls short in “coming together in such forums that the community deem appropriate, to propose amendments to this Constitution”. The proposer has gone to decent lengths to ensure a wide range of community feedback, regularly updating their proposed document over multiple iterations as feedback has been provided. However, the wider Cardano community doesn’t exist solely on X and Google Docs and when viewed in retrospect to the lengths taken during the creation of the first Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution, I feel that it still currently falls short on community engagement and that further socialisation is required through workshops and other community forums. That is not to say that we need another global workshop series and a Convention like before, but a greater level of socialisation is needed to ensure legitimacy of a Constitution that represents the community.
I also feel that it is too soon to be proposing such changes. The community-ratified Constitution has been on-chain for almost 8 months. Great time and effort was put in to reach the result achieved at the Convention in December 2024 and it almost feels as though making such sweeping amendments, orchestrated by a small group, so soon could almost be seen as a discredit to the efforts of so many who participated in the global workshops and their elected delegates and of those at the Convention in Buenos Aires and Nairobi.
As an outgoing member of the ICC I have seen firsthand the evolving quality of governance action proposals over the past year, from Interim Constitution to the community-ratified Constitution. On-chain governance has been a learning curve for all involved and after some initial misunderstandings and frustrations, the quality of proposals has really begun to pick up recently as the community and proposers have come to understand the standards required for constitutionality. With 15 info actions (5 general, 4 NCL, 6 budget), 3 protocol parameter update actions, 1 update constitution, 1 hard fork, 42 treasury withdrawal actions and 1 update constitutional committee action prior to this proposal, there has now been established a good wealth of precedents of proposals in light of the current Constitution. My concern with updating the Constitution at this point in time would be more confusion regarding proposal expectations and a drop in quality of proposals as a result of this confusion as proposers get to grips with a changing ruleset regarding constitutionality without a greater socialisation of its intended amendments.
In summary, I believe that the current Constitution still needs more time so that the community can produce more learnings of the on-chain governance experience and to give the Constitution creation process more legitimacy by increasing the socialisation of any proposed amendments. It has been encouraging to see the level of community engagement so far and I would just like to note a recent post by Jane on X which I felt made some valid contributions also (https://x.com/Jane14457995/status/1954933866432434185). I encourage these efforts to continue until such a time that enough of the global community has had a chance to have their say through local workshops and other such forums in order to achieve a sufficient level of socialisation and legitimacy of representation of the global Cardano community.
- No21.4M ₳Rationale
I vote NO on this proposal.
While the proposal meets formal procedural requirements, the process of drafting and presenting this constitutional update lacked broad, transparent community participation. There is no clear evidence of structured forums or feedback mechanisms involving constitutional delegates from different regions, as was done when transitioning from the Interim to the official Constitution.
Approving this proposal may set a risky precedent of frequent constitutional updates without a well-defined process, undermining transparency, representation, and governance stability. Cardano needs a more rigorous and inclusive constitutional update process to ensure long-term legitimacy and community trust.
Vietnamese
Tôi bỏ phiếu KHÔNG cho đề xuất này.
Dù đề xuất đáp ứng các yêu cầu thủ tục, quá trình xây dựng và trình bày bản cập nhật Hiến pháp này thiếu sự tham vấn rộng rãi và minh bạch từ cộng đồng toàn cầu. Tôi không thấy bằng chứng rõ ràng về các diễn đàn công khai hay cơ chế góp ý từ các Đại Biểu Hiến Pháp tại các quốc gia, như từng có khi chuyển từ Hiến pháp tạm thời sang chính thức.
Việc chấp thuận đề xuất này có thể tạo tiền lệ nguy hiểm khi cập nhật Hiến pháp mà chưa có quy trình rõ ràng, ảnh hưởng đến tính minh bạch, đại diện và sự ổn định trong quản trị. Cardano cần một quy trình cập nhật Hiến pháp chặt chẽ hơn để đảm bảo sự đồng thuận và niềm tin lâu dài từ cộng đồng.
Japanese
私はこの提案に対して反対票（NO）を投じます。
この提案は形式的な手続きを満たしているものの、今回の憲法改定案の作成および提示プロセスには、グローバルコミュニティの幅広く透明な参加が欠けていました。暫定憲法から正式憲法に移行した際のように、各国の憲法代表を巻き込んだ公開フォーラムや構造的なフィードバックプロセスの証拠が見られません。
明確な手順がないまま憲法を繰り返し改定することは、透明性・代表性・ガバナンスの安定性を損なう危険な前例となりかねません。Cardanoには、より厳格で包括的な憲法改定プロセスが必要です。これは長期的な正当性とコミュニティの信頼を維持するために不可欠です。
- Yes21.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes20.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes20.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes19.9M ₳Rationale
Useful amendments to v2.0.
- No17.3M ₳Rationale
I think its a good attempt to improve but i think this update of the constitution needs to be develop by the community. not by a small group, with all the respect for their times and efforts!
- Yes16.4M ₳No rationale