CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.3
7 of 7 committee members voted
- Ace Alliance71aa5b3a…8f04YesActive · term ends epoch 726Rationale
Ace Alliance finds the Cardano Constitution v2.3 proposal to be constitutional.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
The proposed Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution v2.3 complies with the amendment requirements of Article VIII. It satisfies the documentation standards of Article III, Section 5, by providing immutable IPFS references, indicating differences from previous versions, and including supporting rationale.
This governance action seeks to reinforce the existing balance of powers between DReps, SPOs, and the Constitutional Committee without altering the framework established in the current Constitution.
The Cardano Constitution v2.3 proposal is constitutional, procedurally correct, and provides a consistent text for community consideration.
- Cardano Atlantic Council07e0eb70…5bdeYesResigned · term ends epoch 653Rationale
This governance action, as proposed, is Constitutional.
The proposal titled "CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.3" is constitutional. Per our constitutionality review, all relevant articles, guardrails, and other requirements of constitutionality were met.
- Cardano Japan Council725d4d44…7b31YesExpired · term ends epoch 653Rationale
We consider this governance action to be constitutional.
This determination was primarily based on Articles 3 and 8, both of which were judged to be constitutional. (Article 3, Section 5) Reasons were provided for numerous changes, and off-chain content URLs and supplementary materials were attached. Based on these, it was determined that there were no formal issues. (Article 8, Section 1) This provision encourages proposing amendments following discussion as necessary. The necessity of the amendments and the discussion process since the previous proposal were clearly documented, presenting no issues. Furthermore, the added definitions and the provisions of Article 2, Paragraphs 6 and 7 were accompanied by clear justifications, which also presented no issues.
Upon review of the proposed amendments, we note that while certain concerns remain, no clear or decisive violations of the current Constitution were identified. Accordingly, the proposal is considered constitutional.
- Phil_uplc68bb0b42…8746YesExpired · term ends epoch 653Rationale
I have determined that this budget Info governance action is constitutional.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
The proposal does not violate any of the binary criteria of the constitution.
- Tingvard646d1b3a…be43YesActive · term ends epoch 726Rationale
Tingvard judge the “Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution v2.3” update constitution governance action constitutional.
This governance action is properly framed as an update constitution action under Article VIII. It proposes a set of amendments to the Constitution, including the removal of non-binding expectations, the elimination of the Budget Info Action mechanism, and the streamlining of conduct obligations for the Constitutional Committee. It also introduces requirements for immutability of proposal documents, clarifies terminology, and applies treasury audit safeguards to all withdrawals.
The proposal satisfies Article III, § 5 by including a valid anchor, hash, and supporting documentation. It provides a clear abstract, motivation, and detailed rationale that allows voters to make an informed decision. The immutability requirement strengthens compliance with this section by ensuring that proposals cannot be altered after submission.
However, Tingvard notes concerns regarding the process by which this version was developed. The drafting process was conducted in a Google document curated by a single individual, with contributions gathered from DRep rationales, community comments on the document itself, and social media discussion. While this may provide a form of informal consultation, it lacks the structured, transparent, and inclusive deliberation processes envisioned in Article VIII, § 1, which encourages amendments to be shaped through forums deemed appropriate by the Cardano community.
This reliance on informal channels, and the absence of broader participatory frameworks, presents a legitimacy gap: while the action complies procedurally, its community mandate is weaker than if the drafting process had included structured, transparent, and broadly accessible forums. This distinction is important for interpreting not only the letter of the Constitution but also its governance spirit.Tingvard finds this update constitution governance action constitutional by the procedural rules of Article VIII. It satisfies the requirements of Article III, § 5, aligns with the Cardano Blockchain Tenets in Article I, § 1, and strengthens accountability and transparency by requiring immutable proposals and extending treasury audit safeguards. However, Tingvard cautions that the informal and individual-driven drafting process highlights a governance weakness: while procedurally compliant, participatory legitimacy was limited. Repetition of such processes risks weakening the constitutional culture of inclusivity and deliberation envisioned by Article VIII, § 1.
- Eastern Cardano Council2ea7a78e…10ecAbstainActive · term ends epoch 726Rationale
We abstain from issuing a constitutional determination on this governance action to update the Cardano Constitution.
The governance action with ID "gov_action1ezp...xjlfrc" and title "CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.3" is a Constitutional Update, and is subject to the following provisions of the current Cardano Constitution:
ARTICLE III, Section 5 states "In order to promote transparency in the process of on-chain governance, prior to being recorded or enacted on-chain, all proposed governance actions are expected to follow a standardized and legible format including a URL and hash of all documented off-chain content to the Cardano Blockchain. Sufficient rationale shall be provided to justify the requested change to the Cardano Blockchain. The rationale shall include, at a minimum, a title, abstract, reason for the proposal, and relevant supporting materials. The content of every on-chain governance action must be identical to the final off-chain version of the proposed action.[...]"
This governance action includes a valid URL and content hash that match the referenced off-chain documentation. The rationale meets the minimum transparency and documentation requirements outlined above.
Guardrails Clause NEW-CONSTITUTION-02 states "If specified, the new Guardrails Script must be consistent with this Constitution"
No changes to the Guardrails Script are proposed. The current script hash remains unchanged and is therefore compliant.
Concerns and Constitutional Ambiguity
While this governance action meets the above procedural requirements for constitutional amendments, several concerns prevent us from issuing a definitive judgment of constitutionality.
ARTICLE VIII, Section 2, states "Except as otherwise so provided in the Cardano Blockchain Guardrails Appendix, amendments to this Constitution, including to the Cardano Blockchain Guardrails Appendix, shall be approved by a collective decision-making process, requiring an on-chain governance action by owners of ada satisfying a threshold of no less than 65% of the then active voting stake."
This provision contains two distinct constitutional requirements for valid constitutional amendments:
- "Approved by a collective decision-making process", and
- "Requiring an on-chain governance action by owners of ada satisfying a threshold of no less than 65% of the then active voting stake."
The inclusion of both clauses within a single sentence implies that the first clause — "collective decision-making process" — is not redundant, but an intentional and additional constitutional expectation. It suggests that beyond a successful on-chain vote, the amendment should also emerge from an inclusive and structured deliberative process.
However, in the case of this proposal, no clearly defined public consultation phase, structured community forums, or accessible mechanisms for iterative community feedback were established prior to submission. This raises significant concerns under the following additional constitutional provisions:
- ARTICLE I, Tenet 9 emphasizes fair and impartial treatment of all users, in accordance with the collective desires of the community.
- ARTICLE III, Section 6 encourages off-chain governance mechanisms to ensure debate and co-creation of governance actions.
- ARTICLE VIII, Section 1 calls for constitutional amendments to be shaped through forums the Cardano Community deems appropriate.
While these articles articulate the intent of participatory governance, they are not yet implemented as mandatory procedural requirements. This discrepancy between procedural compliance and constitutional intent presents a legitimate ambiguity.
Rationale for Abstention
Due to multiple concerns regarding the legitimacy and transparency of the community participation process, and unresolved constitutional ambiguity, particularly regarding the definition and implementation of a "collective decision-making process" under Article VIII, Section 2, we are unable to issue a conclusive assessment. While the proposal follows the formal procedural pathway, it does not fully uphold the participatory spirit envisioned in the Constitution.
Therefore rather than rule conclusively for or against, we Abstain.
In the absence of a consensus within the ECC voting body, we abstain from making a definitive constitutional judgment.
- KtorZ64f97568…3a49AbstainExpired · term ends epoch 653Rationale
Abstaining due to lack of bandwidth.
Unfortunately, time has been lacking on my end and thanks to other CC members stepping in; I have been de-prioritising that review from my end. Without proper time to spend on this proposal, I am forced to abstain.