CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.0
219 DReps voted · 87 with a rationale · 8 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes14.2M ₳No rationale
- No14.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain13.3M ₳Rationale
RCADA has chosen to abstain at this time while reserving the option to review and update this vote prior to the voting deadline. This approach allows RCADA to allocate focus where immediate evaluation is most impactful, particularly on proposals that are close to threshold or raise significant procedural or constitutional concerns. If this proposal reaches the approv-al threshold prior to our review, the abstention will stand as a neutral signal of deferral, not op-position. Should further analysis be warranted, RCADA will update this vote accordingly.
- Abstain12.1M ₳Rationale
We are abstaining to avoid creating procedural blockage for a largely beneficial update while signaling a clear preference for a more inclusive, better-timed, and better-communicated amendment process. Substantively, we recognize meaningful improvements in v2: clearer defined terms, simplified language, and removal of outdated provisions, alongside alignment updates such as eliminating the standing requirement to attach a Budget Info Action to treasury withdrawals. These are quality-of-life corrections that reduce ambiguity and technical debt in the text, and we acknowledge the effort behind them.
Our abstention is therefore not about content rejection; it is about process. Although we appreciate Yuta’s sincere attempts to invite participation, the practical window and venues for engagement did not, in our view, provide sufficient reach and attention for broad community input. Given the Constitution’s foundational role, we believe updates of this magnitude should be preceded by a clearly signposted and widely accessible consultation cycle (e.g., advance timeline, multilingual summaries, regional office hours, written comment periods, and transparent diff mapping). The motivation text in the v2 materials themselves underlines that the revision tackles clarity, definitions, and pruning of unused clauses, precisely the kind of changes where broad review helps catch edge cases and social implications before adoption.
We also advise that v2 explicitly include a clear, community-ratified amendment process. As it stands, the path to initiating, socializing, and finalizing constitutional edits is not sufficiently standardized, which makes inclusive participation fragile and uneven across regions and time zones. To address this, we recommend the creation of a community-mandated Constitutional Review Committee tasked to (i) monitor constitutional effectiveness in practice; (ii) steward amendment proposals end-to-end; (iii) publish consultation calendars and stakeholder engagement reports; and (iv) maintain a public change log and rationale archive.
Finally, we note one material policy shift: the removal of the Budget Info Action requirement for treasury withdrawals warrants heightened governance hygiene. We recommend that the essential parts of the budget info actions must be integrated in the treasury withdrawal actions to preserve trust and accountability while streamlining the budgetary process and reducing the burden on DReps as we transition. Our abstention keeps the door open for these procedural refinements without impeding progress on the underlying textual improvements. Should the community adopt v2, Wada stands ready to support implementation of the above process enhancements and to contribute beyond our DRep role to ensure the Constitution remains both clear and genuinely community-driven.
- YesRevoted10.9M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes11mo agoSuperseded
- Yes10.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.4M ₳Rationale
I have confidence in the process taken and changes made. Slight adjustment needed in the grammar
- Yes8.8M ₳Rationale
私はこの提案に賛成します。不要な条項や過剰な要件が削除され、定義や文言も整理されたことで、憲法はよりシンプルで実用的になると感じました。\n\nI support this proposal because the removal of unnecessary provisions and requirements, along with clearer definitions and wording, makes the Constitution simpler and more practical.
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes7.6M ₳Rationale
I commend Yuta as the main author of the CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.0.
Although I previously participated in a Cardano Constitutional Workshop - before the original constitution 1.0 was approved - the workshop I attended was rigid, comnstrainted by 10 narrow pre-selected questions that participants were forced to discuss and the sessions were overlong and overly scripted. That's my experience and I cannot refer to any other experience.Essentially, workshop participants (in the workshop that I took part in), were awarded a role akin to infants permitted to play with 10 small toys in a large toy shop. It was limiting and uninspiring and sort of irrelevant.
YUTA put forward a document for CONSTITUTION v2.0, allowed everyone to leave feedback multiple times over a long enough period. Every time I did leave suggestions, he carefully considered each input, responded and took on board all suggestions for improvements, while carefully weighing their possible implications.
There are many, almost invisible tweaks that this version makes, improving the original document. I think this version also clarifies many aspects in the original constitution that could be misinterpreted or could allow room for differented understandings.There are also many substantial improvements that have been introduced. Overall, I think this is a better, more relevant document than the original constitution 1.0.
Is it perfect? No. Is it better than the original constitution 1.0 ? Yes, in my opinion - although there might be some major issues that someone else would like to raise. If so, raise them. This attempt could fail, but could be improved further with inputs from some other quarters.
Could there be some hidden flaws? Possibly. Fortunately, we also have the Cardano Constitutional committee as well to double-check that we are not transgressing on some important point. And other geat governance experts and legal minds.
Am I biased? Yes, clearly. So take my opinion with a large grain of salt. I see multiple instances of some of my wordings that were incorporated in this version. Seeing one's own words makes one more partial to the document. So, caution! Read it for yourselves.
I've read it several times along the way as it was been refined . THis means I am not coming at it with fresh eyes and I may be missing something, so other DReps who did not participate in this process, should look at the proposed CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.0 very carefully.
Should the community try to improve constitution 1.0 - definitely yes. Should it wait for some big entity to organize a top-down process, I think no.
Also, please read constitution 1.0 and the typos, errant phrases, different phrasings for the same thing, and loose wording - that this version tightens up.
Overall, this might be a welcome step forward.CARDANOブロックチェーン・エコシステム憲法v2.0の主要執筆者として、YUTA氏を称賛します。
私は以前、憲法1.0が承認される前にCardano憲法ワークショップに参加したことがありますが、私が参加したワークショップは堅苦しく、参加者は事前に用意された10個の限定的な質問について議論を強いられ、セッションは長すぎ、過度に台本化されていました。これは私の経験であり、他の経験について言及することはできません。本質的に、ワークショップ参加者（私が参加したワークショップ）は、大きなおもちゃ屋で10個の小さなおもちゃで遊ぶことを許された幼児のような役割を与えられていました。それは制限的で、刺激がなく、ある意味無意味でした。
YUTA氏は憲法v2.0の文書を提出し、十分な期間にわたって全員に複数回フィードバックを残す機会を与えました。私が提案を残すたびに、彼はそれぞれの意見を慎重に検討し、返信し、改善のためのすべての提案を慎重に検討しながら、その影響を慎重に評価してくれました。
このバージョンでは、ほとんど目に見えない多くの修正が加えられており、元の文書を改善しています。また、このバージョンでは、誤解を招きやすく、異なる解釈の余地を残しかねない多くの側面が明確にされていると思います。また、多くの重要な改善点も導入されています。全体として、これは元の憲法 1.0 よりも優れた、より適切な文書になっていると思います。
完璧ですか？いいえ。元の憲法 1.0 よりも優れているか？はい、私の意見ではそうです。ただし、他の誰かが指摘したいと思う重要な問題がいくつかあるかもしれません。もしそうなら、指摘してください。この試みは失敗するかもしれませんが、他の方面からの意見を取り入れることで、さらに改善できる可能性があります。
隠れた欠陥があるでしょうか？可能性はあります。幸いなことに、重要な点に違反していないかを再確認してくれるカルダノ憲法委員会もいます。そして、他にも優れたガバナンスの専門家や法律家がいます。
私は偏っているでしょうか？はい、もちろんです。ですから、私の意見は鵜呑みにしないでください。このバージョンには、私の言葉が複数取り入れられているのが分かります。自分の言葉を見ると、よりその文書に偏ってしまうものです。ですから、ご注意ください！ご自身で読んでみてください。
私は、この文書が改訂される過程で何度も読み返しました。つまり、新鮮な視点で取り組んでいるわけではなく、何かを見落としている可能性があります。そのため、このプロセスに参加していない他のDRepの方々は、提案されているCARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.0をよく読んでください。
コミュニティがConstitution 1.0の改善を試みるべきか？もちろんそうすべきです。しかし、大規模な組織がトップダウンのプロセスを組織するのを待つべきかどうか？私はそうは思いません。
また、Constitution 1.0をよく読んで、誤字、誤った表現、同じ内容の異なる表現、そして曖昧な表現など、このバージョンでは改善されている点を確認してください。
全体として、これは歓迎すべき前進と言えるでしょう。 - Yes6.4M ₳No rationale
- No5.9M ₳Rationale
While I am for continuous improvement, I have a couple of key issues here where this goes a bit beyond what I think of as iterative. While Yuta has gone through some lengths to collect feedback from the community this is absent, in my opinion, of broader community involved problem solving methods outside certain areas of social media feedback. It attempts to make a significant change to the budget process with insufficient explanation, reasoning, or guidance – as well as removes CC “gates” put in place when it comes to the original BIA – and perhaps its intent. The result here is a NO vote from me.
Where would I vote yes? I want to see a narrowed approach to the submitted changes (more than one proposal effectively) – with comprehensive and focused changes to key areas with expanded upon reasonings - which I would prefer to see for a change to the constitution at this level. The brief set of information in the proposal in my opinion lacks sufficient supporting links/evidence of the pros and cons of those larger non-insignificant changes (NCL, BIA, CC scope/impact). Even the link to the Google doc used to collect initial information from community members is missing here, which could have been a supporting link (although still not sufficient for me). Below is perhaps an iterative roadmap on constitutional changes that will be easier to move forward with.**Proposal 1 – Constitution Update v1.1 ** - What I see as fixes to typos and additional definitions, clearer or narrower scopes defined amongst the roles, and ultimately some tidiness around guardrails and their groupings (network, economic, governance, etc.) – this should have been 1 proposal in and of itself. Easy win.
Proposal 2 – Constitution Update v1.5 Suggestion - I would have considered a second constitutional update proposal when it came to the NCL. Shoring up the definition and aligning the budget process to fit around those needs. There is still debates ongoing about how to handle this, so we should not look beyond this because of the downstream impacts this definition may have in the process.
Proposal – Constitution Update v2.0 Suggestion - Finally – if v1.5 did not resolve key process issues around the BIA and TWA - create another more narrowed/focused constitutional update to address budget/treasury related process changes specifically as it will make fundamental changes to the budget process, change the CC scope/”gated” process how it is today, and more things I’m forgetting to mention here. - Yes5.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on the v2.0 Cardano Constitution. Having proudly signed the original Constitution in Argentina, I can attest that this updated version effectively eliminates unnecessary barriers to entry, enhances overall clarity, and positions Cardano for unprecedented growth and success. It is also the first truly community-refined Constitution. I fully anticipate additional refinements as our ecosystem continues to evolve and mature.
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
We support the adoption of the Cardano Constitution v2.0.
While the changes appear largely structural (improving clarity, fixing typos, and removing redundancy) one modification carries real governance implications: eliminating the requirement to submit a Budget Information Governance Action (BIA) prior to any treasury withdrawal.
We believe this is a positive change. The BIA mechanism was a well-intentioned but ultimately redundant safeguard. Its removal does not eliminate treasury oversight. Removing this bottleneck improves operational agility for builders without compromising systemic integrity.
We encourage fellow DReps, SPOs, and ecosystem participants to self-organize and maintain off-chain codes of conduct and community norms, which can be upheld through social consensus and delegation behavior, and that ultimately represent what we consider best-practices for on-chain governance participants.
We believe v2.0 is a net-positive step toward a more legible and functional governance framework. We vote YES. - Yes4.7M ₳No rationale
- No4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳Rationale
I support the removal of the Budget Info Action requirement. We have multiple protecting mechanisms, but this was less helpful and more time consuming.
- Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4M ₳No rationale
- No3.8M ₳Rationale
Several of the changes significantly oversimplify and undermine the intent of the attendees of the Constitutional Convention.
Most importantly, the removal of the requirement to have a budget as a guardrail to spending, removes a protective layer to abuse of the Treasury which is one of the greater risks the ecosystem faces. Thus I can not support this submission.
- Yes3.8M ₳Rationale
I vote YES for a better constitution.
Strength and honor.
- YesChanged3.1M ₳Rationale
This update to the Cardano Constitution does exactly what it sets out to do:
- Fixed typos and cleaned up wording
- Simplified structure and reduced word count
- Clarified key definitions
- Removed unused or outdated clauses
- Removed the budget requirement for treasury withdrawals
Given that this GA streamlines and improves the Cardano Constitution without making any changes to functionality that should require ample community debate, this proposal deserves to pass.
Thank you YUTA for making needed improvements to the Cardano Constitution - you have my YES vote! :)
Should your GA fail to pass due to not enough participation, I encourage you to resubmit as it takes a longer than normal timeline for DReps to review this particular GA.
Earlier votes
Abstain11mo agoSuperseded
As I have not yet had ample time to review this proposal, I have voted Abstain for now.
I'll be revising my vote when I have invested enough time to make a clear decision on this important piece of governance.
- No3M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.8M ₳No rationale
- No2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
These changes seem reasonable, and I agree the original Constitution could use some polishing.
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
この憲法改訂は、分散型ガバナンス文書としての明瞭性・実用性を高め、不要な制約を取り除く合理的な改善です。提案の構成、比較資料、IPFSでの提示内容も透明性が高く、Cardano憲法の成熟に貢献すると判断し、賛成票を投じます。
This update to the Cardano Constitution enhances clarity, removes redundant constraints, and improves practical usability for decentralized governance. Given the transparency of the proposal, including a detailed list of changes via IPFS, I support this revision and vote YES.
- Abstain2.5M ₳No rationale
- No2.5M ₳Rationale
There are some good elements here like streamlining the process but there are many changes in scope that makes me uncomfortable. I think a smaller change set would pass.
- Yes2.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- No2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2M ₳No rationale
- No1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
We vote YES. v2.0 mainly relaxes and clarifies treasury withdrawal rules, removes Budget Information Actions, and adds minimal disclosure requirements that don’t create extra work for proposers.
- Abstain1.8M ₳Rationale
Voting Abstain. The proposal introduces changes to the Constitution without sufficient community debate or detailed explanation of their implications. My concern is with the process and lack of participation, not with the idea of improving the Constitution, which I recognise does need refinement.
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale