CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.3
207 DReps voted · 77 with a rationale · 9 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No584.2M ₳Rationale
Summary
Yoroi DRep votes NO on the governance action to adopt Cardano Constitution v2.3.
Rationale
Yoroi would like to sincerely thank Yuta for the time, care, and consistency he’s shown in leading the continued evolution of the Cardano Constitution. The community benefits greatly from these ongoing discussions and refinements, and we recognize how much thoughtful work went into v2.3.
That said, after careful review, we believe several revisions in this version could unintentionally reduce clarity or weaken existing safeguards that protect Cardano’s decentralized decision-making process.
Audit Requirement:
The new phrasing around audits (“appoint independent auditors”) creates practical uncertainty over who is responsible for selection, funding, and timing. The previous version already offered a clear and effective standard through Intersect’s audit process, which ensured accountability without procedural confusion.
Custodian Consent:
Expanding the clause to let custodians “vote or delegate” on behalf of ADA holders, combined with the term shift from “owners” to “holders,” introduces potential ambiguity over user consent and could concentrate voting power among large custodial entities.
Each of these points could likely be addressed through clarification and community alignment, but together they present enough risk to justify a cautious NO vote at this stage.Conclusion
Yoroi deeply appreciates Yuta’s continuous effort to make Cardano’s Constitution more complete and approachable. This No vote is not a rejection of that work, it’s a call for more dialogue before codifying these specific changes. We’re very happy to work together and help facilitate open discussion toward a future version that strengthens both clarity and decentralization in Cardano’s governance.
- Yes435.8M ₳Rationale
My reasons for voting YES on "CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.3" are well summarized in the "Three-line summary" description in the governance action metadata:
- Cardano Constitution v2.3 removes non-binding expectations, the Budget Info Action mechanism, and mandatory CC conduct rules, streamlining governance.
- It adds clear definitions, enforces immutability of proposal documents, and applies treasury audit/accountability safeguards to all withdrawals.
- Community review of v2.0 had 86.23% DRep participation, and v2.3 incorporates feedback and improvements, addressing prior concerns to reinforce legitimacy and broad input.
However, I will be regularly reviewing community rationales voting NO and listening carefully to any opposing arguments.
私が、「CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.3」にYESを投票する理由は、ガバナンスアクションのメタデータの「Three-line summary」の記述によく要約されています。
- Cardano Constitution v2.3 では、拘束力のない期待、予算情報アクション メカニズム、および必須の CC 行動ルールが削除され、ガバナンスが合理化されます。
- 明確な定義を追加し、提案文書の不変性を強化し、すべての引き出しに財務監査/説明責任の保護措置を適用します。
- v2.0 のコミュニティレビューでは DRep の参加率が 86.23% で、v2.3 ではフィードバックと改善が組み込まれ、以前の懸念に対処して正当性と幅広い入力が強化されています。
ただ、私はNOを投票するコミュニティのRationalを定期的に確認して、反対意見をよく聞く予定です。
- Yes332.2M ₳No rationale
- No293M ₳Rationale
Summary
EMURGO as DRep votes NO on the governance action to adopt Cardano Constitution v2.3.
Rationale
EMURGO deeply appreciates Yuta’s leadership and continued dedication in advancing the Cardano Constitution. The proposed v2.3 introduces valuable refinements to structure, consistency, and readability that contribute to the ongoing evolution of Cardano’s governance framework.
However, several changes in this version raise substantive concerns regarding governance clarity and decentralization safeguards. The revised Net Change Limit weakens the explicit link between approved budgets and treasury withdrawals, potentially diluting fiscal accountability.
The updated Audit Requirement creates uncertainty around execution and funding responsibility, reducing procedural clarity. Additionally, the expanded Custodian Consent clause broadens custodial authority, which may inadvertently increase centralization risks and weaken user consent protections.
While these issues may stem from good intentions to streamline the Constitution and the governance process, the current wording introduces ambiguity in areas that are foundational to Cardano’s accountability and decentralized governance model.
Conclusion
EMURGO’s NO vote reflects a commitment to preserving procedural integrity, transparency, and decentralization within Cardano’s constitutional design. We commend Yuta’s continued effort and emphasize that EMURGO remains ready to collaborate and facilitate further discussions to refine these sections in future amendments, ensuring clarity and balance in the governance framework moving forward.
- Yes222.9M ₳Rationale
TL;DR: EDC voted YES on gov_action1ezp0r9rgf4njx93p9uq7l3kjs9m739jm0ntf26vplcmucec4jc0qqxjlfrc;
Thanks Yuta for putting in the work to update the Constitution. The update brings clarity on definitions (now being part of the document body), removed budget info actions, reducing the amounts of votes DReps have to do (though in reality only a on-chain proposal brings attention to a topic ecosystem wide and proposals will pop up multiple times with refinements and feedback from previous votes.)
- Yes174.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes165.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes120.2M ₳Rationale
The Cardano Foundation, as a DRep, votes YES on the New Constitution GA. This version represents an improvement over the current constitution, incorporating valuable on-chain feedback from the community. It strengthens accountability, improves clarity, and streamlines the governance process.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
This proposal to adopt Constitution v2.3 is a continuation of a community-led effort that we previously supported. Consistent with our rationale for v2.0, we believe that the Constitution is a living document, and we support incremental, community-driven improvements that are judged on their substance.
This new version demonstrates a healthy and responsive governance cycle. Following a review of v2.0, which saw participation from over 86% of the DRep active stake, the proposer integrates lessons learned and directly addresses feedback received in this v2.3.
The new version makes several key enhancements that we believe will make Cardano's governance more effective:
- A More Efficient Treasury Process: As with version 2.0 submitted in a previous governance action, this version 2.3 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. Between versions 2.0 and 2.3 there was the removal of a provision requiring disclosure
- 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 votes YES. Constitution v2.3 is a well-reasoned and necessary step forward for Cardano's governance model. While still improvable, it represents a clear move in the right direction.
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. - Yes92.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes91.5M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I decided to vote YES for changes to the content of the constitution, i.e., for version v2.3.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Slight adjustments to the texts and definitions make sense and simplify the understanding of the Constitution.
Changes regarding Info governance actions, strengthening accountability, and ensuring document mutability also make sense and streamline governance.
- Yes88.6M ₳Rationale
Cardano Constitution v2.3 improves readability by aligning terminology and definitions, and streamlines governance to encourage participation in on-chain governance.
- Yes86M ₳Rationale
SIPO DRep Position: Conditional Support (Yes with Recommendations)
SIPO supports the “Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution v2.3” proposal as an important step toward a more transparent, accountable, and immutable governance framework. However, we adopt a “Conditional Yes” stance, as some aspects need further improvement in future versions.
Reasons for Support:
v2.3 strengthens Cardano’s institutional trust through:
1. Clear immutability of proposal documents, ensuring proposals cannot be altered after submission.
2. Universal audit and accountability safeguards for all treasury withdrawals.
3. Removal of non-binding or aspirational clauses, simplifying governance and making it more enforceable.These reforms make Cardano’s governance more consistent, transparent, and aligned with the principles of decentralized public infrastructure. They represent progress from an advisory framework toward a practical and legally functional constitution.
Points for Improvement:
1. The removal of the “Budget Info Action” simplifies the process but reduces pre-execution transparency. SIPO recommends introducing a pre-disclosure or review mechanism before treasury withdrawals to preserve open deliberation.
2. The removal of the mandatory “Code of Conduct” for the Constitutional Committee grants flexibility, but SIPO believes that ethical standards for DReps and the Committee remain essential for maintaining public trust.
3. Immutability is a valuable improvement, yet Cardano governance must remain adaptive and human-centered. SIPO encourages including continuous discussion phases for feedback and reflection in future versions (v2.4+).Broader Context:
This constitutional update positions Cardano at the forefront of on-chain governance globally. It enhances institutional reliability and sets a precedent for transparent, auditable, and democratic decision-making. For SIPO, this version lays a stronger foundation for initiatives like AIRA and future real-world applications that depend on Cardano’s public trust layer.Conclusion:
SIPO votes YES (Conditional Support) for Cardano Constitution v2.3.
We support its direction and structure as a step toward a more mature, transparent, and trustworthy ecosystem. At the same time, we call for the following improvements in v2.4 and beyond:
• Reintroduction of transparent pre-budget disclosure mechanisms.
• Reaffirmation of behavioral and ethical standards for DReps and Committees.
• Establishment of an ongoing discussion phase to balance formal rules with human collaboration.v2.3 builds institutional trust. The next evolution should strengthen human trust — ensuring Cardano’s governance embodies both decentralization in code and collaboration in community.
⸻
SIPO DRepの立場：条件付き賛成（Yes with Recommendations）
SIPOは、「Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution v2.3」提案に条件付きで賛成します。
この改訂は、カルダノのガバナンスをより透明で、説明責任のある制度へ進化させる重要な一歩だと考えます。支持する理由:
v2.3では、次の3点が特に高く評価できます。
1. 提案文書の不変性を明文化し、改ざんを防ぐことで信頼性を確立。
2. すべてのトレジャリー出金に対して監査を義務化し、公共資金の透明性を強化。
3. 非拘束的条項を整理し、実務的かつ法的に明確な憲法構造を確立。これにより、カルダノは「公共インフラとしての分散型信頼システム」へと一歩前進します。
改善を求める点:
1. Budget Info Actionの削除により手続きが簡素化された一方で、資金執行前の透明性が減少しました。今後は、出金前の情報開示やレビューの仕組みを制度的に設けることを提案します。
2. 憲法委員会（CC）の行動規範義務が削除されましたが、DRepやCCに共通する倫理指針の維持は不可欠です。コミュニティ主導での行動規範再整備を期待します。
3. 不変性の強化は重要ですが、ガバナンスは柔軟性と人間的対話も必要です。v2.4以降では、オンチェーン投票と並行して意見交換を続けるディスカッションフェーズの制度化を提案します。全体的意義:
v2.3は、カルダノが暗号資産ネットワークを超えて、透明で説明責任のある分散型公共インフラへ進化することを示しています。SIPOは、AIRAなどの現実社会連携プロジェクトにおいて、この憲法が信頼の基盤になると考えています。結論:
SIPOは本提案に**賛成（Yes）**票を投じます。
ただし、以下の改善を今後の改訂に求めます。
• 予算情報の事前開示プロセスの再設計
• 倫理規範・行動指針の明文化
• 継続的ディスカッションの制度化v2.3は制度としての信頼を確立しました。
次は、人間的信頼と協働を強化する段階へ。
それこそが、カルダノが「分散化された文明のガバナンス」を体現するための道だとSIPOは考えています。 - No84.3M ₳Rationale
Please see my August 6, 2025 post on X with respect to the previous v.2.0 vote. While I appreciate that many changes were made in v.2.3 that accommodated comments made by myself and others, I am voting "no" on this proposal as to v.2.3. As I noted in my v.2.0 comments, it is still very difficult to track the changes in this proposed new constitution. One document was attached to the proposal that tracked changes from v.2.0 to v.2.3. That document did what I suggested in my August 6, 2025 comments in showing changes to sections side-by-side. However, the bulk of the changes are in another document which shows changes from v.1.0 to v.2.3 and that document does not show the changes side-by-side. This makes it extremely difficult to track substantive changes. Many changes to the document were fine and involved things like capitalization, grammar, and punctuation. Those were improvements or necessary corrections in many cases. Thank you for those changes. However, many other changes were stylistic changes that seemed to be made at the whim of whoever made them. I don't think we should be changing things in the constitution based on anyone's whim. An example is the deletion of much of the aspirational language in the constitution. As I noted in my August 6, 2025 comments, Cardano itself is aspirational and I believe our constitution should be as well. A full set of explanatory comments (much more itemized and detailed than the current comments) would be helpful to justify all the changes in the proposal. An example that shows the need for side-by-side changes, and seems to include deletion of aspirational language (although it's difficult to track), is Art. II, Section 1 which shows up on Line 99 in one column of the v.1.0 to v.2.3 changes and in Line 160 of the other column. Many other no voters have pointed out substantive changes that are equally difficult to track and understand. I may have missed them if not pointed out by others. It makes me wonder what changes we all may be missing here. The starting point for understanding these changes should be a side-by-side tracked changes draft or a draft with in-line changes (deletions and insertions all marked in one single text) as you would see in any other legislative environment (e.g. any markup of a bill in the U.S. Congress or most modern parliaments in industrialized countries). Otherwise, it's too difficult to say what we are voting for here. I previously pointed this out on August 6, 2025. Once I can actually track the small grain substantive changes in a reliable way, I will be able to discern if I actually agree with them. But, I will vote "no" on this current proposal. I like many of the grammatical and other smaller corrections. But, the other substantive changes are too hard to track and the stylistic changes seem too arbitrary to justify a "yes" vote on something as important as the Cardano Constitution.
- Yes77.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes76.8M ₳Rationale
Clearly removing the budget info action is a necessary step forward as an ecosystem.
- Yes75.2M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted74.5M ₳Rationale
I support Cardano Constitution v2.3.
This constitutional reform streamlines governance by removing non-binding expectations and redundant mechanisms,
reducing unnecessary workload and making the framework more consistent, practical, and sustainable.
By applying audit and accountability safeguards to all Treasury withdrawals
and enforcing immutability of proposal documents,
v2.3 strengthens integrity, transparency, and trust across the ecosystem.As a DRep, I believe this reform advances Cardano’s governance
from goodwill-based participation toward a more mature and durable institutional model —
one that protects decentralization by ensuring that community members are not overburdened.Cardano Constitution v2.3 に賛成します。
本改正は、非拘束的な期待条項や冗長なメカニズムを整理し、
コミュニティに過度な負担をかけることなく、
ガバナンス構造をより明確かつ実務的で持続可能なものにしています。
すべてのトレジャリー支出に監査・説明責任を適用し、
提案文書の不変性を明文化することで、透明性と信頼性が一層強化されます。DRepとして、善意への依存から脱し、分散性を守りながら現実的に機能する制度へと前進する
成熟したガバナンスの姿を示す改正だと考えます。Earlier votes
Yes9mo agoSuperseded
I support Cardano Constitution v2.3.
This revision streamlines governance by removing non-binding expectations and redundant mechanisms,
making the framework more consistent, practical, and transparent.
By applying audit and accountability safeguards to all Treasury withdrawals
and enforcing immutability of proposal documents,
v2.3 strengthens integrity and trust across the ecosystem.As a DRep, I believe this revision enhances the practical effectiveness and institutional maturity of Cardano’s governance.
Cardano Constitution v2.3 に賛成します。
本改訂は、非拘束的な期待条項や冗長なメカニズムを整理し、
ガバナンス構造をより明確かつ実務的なものにしています。
すべてのトレジャリー支出に監査・説明責任を適用し、
提案文書の不変性を明文化することで、信頼性と透明性がさらに向上します。DRepとして、理念にとどまらず、現実的に機能する制度としての完成度を高める改訂だと考えます。
- Yes73.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES. This is a mature iteration, and I credit the proposers for their hard work. Removing the redundant Budget Info Action streamlines governance, will reduce voter fatigue, and applying universal audit safeguards to all withdrawals is a massive win for accountability and sustainability.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting a strong YES. I credit the immense work that went into this responsible and mature evolution of our Constitution, which clearly incorporates extensive community feedback.
This is a major win for governance. Removing the redundant Budget Info Action streamlines the process and will significantly reduce voter fatigue. Crucially, it makes administrator and audit requirements mandatory for all treasury withdrawals. This is a non-negotiable upgrade for sustainability and a clear sign of our governance maturing.
- Abstain69.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes66M ₳Rationale
"UTxO Balance Insufficient"
- Yes62.7M ₳Rationale
Yes, the community sentiment is good for this one. I support the work that has gone into improving things. Thanks Yuta for all the information you've gathered on this one.
- Yes53.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes50.5M ₳Rationale
I support the new Cardano Constitution because it creates a clear, transparent, and accountable governance framework. It defines the roles of DReps, SPOs, and the Constitutional Committee while embedding guardrails that protect the Treasury and align governance with long-term sustainability.
I also support the removal of non-binding expectations like the Budget Info Action, as it simplifies the proposal process. This change lowers friction and encourages more agile, community-driven initiatives which decentralized governance should enable.
- No50.4M ₳Rationale
CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.3 -->> No
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting No on this Governance Action.
While I acknowledge the intention to move forward with a new version of the Cardano Constitution, I believe the process and validation behind this draft are insufficient to ensure legitimacy and community consensus at a global scale.
A constitutional framework is the highest form of governance expression within the Cardano ecosystem. Therefore, its revision or replacement must be conducted with the same depth of discussion, inclusivity, and deliberative process as the original Constitutional Convention — including open workshops, community feedback cycles, and peer-reviewed validation.
However, this proposal does not appear to have undergone comparable community engagement. The time elapsed since the last major constitutional debate has been too short, and no evidence of extensive global consultation or multilingual deliberation has been presented.
Even in the most recent governance workshops held in Japan, this topic was not discussed or formally raised as an agenda item, suggesting that awareness and understanding remain limited across regions.
Moreover, the editing and review process lacks transparency and objectivity. There is no public record of expert peer review, nor clear documentation of how revisions were proposed, debated, or approved. As a result, it is difficult to consider this version a sufficiently validated draft from the perspective of ecosystem safety, governance integrity, and long-term constitutional stability.
It is also concerning that the primary author and submitter of this Governance Action, who holds significant voting power, has voted in favor of their own draft. This concentration of influence raises questions about impartiality and sets a potentially dangerous precedent for future governance actions, where individuals or entities with large voting weight could unilaterally shape fundamental rules of the ecosystem.
Finally, community participation metrics remain relatively low, and the proposal has not reached the level of global engagement or voting thresholds that would justify enacting a new Constitution.
For these reasons, I cannot support this Governance Action at this stage. A new Constitution should emerge from a transparent, peer-reviewed, and globally inclusive process — one that reflects the collective will of the entire Cardano community, not the initiative of a few.
[Japanese ver. follows]
私はこのガバナンスアクションに対して 反対票（No） を投じます。
新しいカルダノ憲法の制定という意図自体は理解しますが、この草案の作成・検証プロセスは、正統性やグローバルな合意形成を担保するには不十分であると考えます。
憲法はカルダノ・エコシステムにおける最高位のガバナンス文書です。したがって、その改定や再制定は、初期の憲法制定会議と同等の議論の深さ、包摂性、熟議のプロセスを経る必要があります。具体的には、オープンなワークショップ、コミュニティ・フィードバックの反映、専門家によるピアレビューなどが不可欠です。
しかし、この提案はそれらに相当するコミュニティ・エンゲージメントを経ていません。前回の主要な憲法議論から十分な時間が経過しておらず、グローバル規模での議論や多言語での検討も確認されていません。
直近で日本で開催されたガバナンス・ワークショップにおいても、この件は議題として取り上げられておらず、地域をまたいだ理解と関心が十分に広がっていないことが示唆されます。
さらに、編集およびレビューのプロセスは透明性と客観性を欠いています。
専門家によるピアレビューの記録も、どのように修正や承認が行われたかの詳細なドキュメントも公開されていません。そのため、エコシステムの安全性やガバナンスの健全性、長期的な安定性の観点から、この草案を十分に検証済みの文書と見なすことは困難です。
また、このガバナンスアクションの主要作成者であり、かつ大きな投票力を持つ当人が、自身の草案に賛成票を投じている点も懸念されます。
これは公正性や客観性に疑問を生じさせ、将来のガバナンスアクションにおいて、影響力を持つ個人や組織が一方的に基本ルールを形成するという、危険な前例を残しかねません。
さらに、投票参加率も依然として低く、グローバルな関心や十分な投票密度が確認できない状況です。これをもって新憲法を制定するのは、時期尚早だと考えます。
以上の理由から、私は現段階でこのガバナンスアクションを支持することはできません。
新しいカルダノ憲法は、透明性・専門的検証・グローバルな包摂性を備えたプロセスから生まれるべきであり、限られた個人の主導で決定されるべきではありません。 - Yes50M ₳Rationale
I'm voting Yes. All the inaccuracies and misspellings I mentioned earlier have been fixed, so at this point, I see no reason to vote otherwise.
- Yes49.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes48.6M ₳Rationale
We desperately need a new constitution to streamline the budget process so DReps do not have voting fatigue!
- Yes47.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes42.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes40.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes38.1M ₳Rationale
I support this proposal. A single voting round is sufficient, and removing the Budget Info Action improves efficiency. However, it's critical to enforce strict auditing and disbursement conditions to prevent treasury funds from being released without meeting the required standards, ensuring transparency and accountability.
- Yes37.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes34.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes34.3M ₳Rationale
We voted in favor of this proposal. This proposal clarifies definitions and processes, enhancing transparency and consistency. It is expected to help the overall governance process proceed in a more stable and understandable manner.
- Yes33.5M ₳Rationale
Voting YES to v2.3 update for simplifying governance and budget processes, removing unnecessary complexity, and strengthening efficiency, accountability, and sustainability across the Cardano ecosystem.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
The Cardano Constitution v2.3 update simplifies the governance and budget processes while maintaining alignment with the ecosystem’s core principles of decentralization, transparency, and fiscal responsibility.
This revision removes unnecessary complexity and redundant sections, improving readability and operational efficiency without weakening constitutional safeguards. The streamlined budget process enhances accountability and enables more agile decision-making in the management of community resources.
By focusing on clarity, sustainability, and efficiency, the v2.3 update strengthens Cardano’s governance framework and supports long-term ecosystem growth. Therefore, the vote is YES.
- Yes31.4M ₳Rationale
I support this version of the Cardano Constitution because it provides clearer definitions and a more inclusive governance framework. The roles and responsibilities of DReps, SPOs, and general Ada Holders are expressed in a flexible and accessible manner, which encourages broader participation while maintaining transparency and accountability. This balance between clarity and openness strengthens the foundation for sustainable, decentralized governance.
- Yes30.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes27.9M ₳Rationale
I’m voting YES on Constitution v2.3 because it is more clear and concise, which is a step in the right direction. Removing the Budget Info Action requirement will streamline treasury withdrawals and mitigate redundant voting. Removing codes of conduct is also an improvement because that is not something that is enforceable by the Constitutional Committee.
That said, there are still more improvements to be desired and unenforceable rules that should be removed. In my opinion one of the most troublesome sections are the CRITICAL & SECURITY parameter categories in the guardrails. Article II Section 5 tells SPOs to vote on “security-relevant” parameter updates, but these parameters are called "CRITICAL parameters" and listed in Section 2.1 of the guardrails. Even more confusingly, Section 2.4 has a different category called "Technical/Security Parameters", but these are different from the CRITICAL parameters or the "security-relevant" parameters mention in Article II Section 5. This confusing categorization desperately needs to be clarified in a future revision of the Constitution. However, since this iteration is an improvement over the current constitution I will be voting YES on this proposal.
- Yes27.9M ₳No rationale
- No27.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes26.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes26.1M ₳Rationale
Rationale for YES Vote on Cardano Constitution v2.3 (One note in rationale included at the bottom of page)
After reviewing the proposed updates from v1.0 and v2.0 to v2.3, I am voting YES in support of this constitutional revision.
Cardano’s governance framework is evolving from aspirational guidance to an enforceable, transparent, and verifiable system. The removal of non-binding “expectations” and “encouragement” clauses streamlines the Constitution to focus on rules that can be applied objectively and consistently (1). This shift promotes operational efficiency and accountability, aligning with the long-term goal of creating a governance model that functions with clarity and measurable outcomes.
The consolidation of budget and reporting requirements into the Treasury Withdrawal process simplifies oversight while strengthening auditability and transparency across all withdrawals, not only large ones. This is a critical step toward building institutional trust and demonstrating fiscal responsibility at scale.
Additionally, the standardization of terminology, immutability of proposals, and preservation of builder privacy strike the right balance between transparency and decentralization. Governance should empower participants to act responsibly while protecting contributors from unnecessary exposure.
In my view, these changes represent a mature evolution of Cardano’s constitutional design — one that replaces ambiguity with structure, and sentiment with process. Version 2.3 is a practical foundation for credible, data-driven governance capable of scaling alongside Cardano’s growth.
Vote: ✅ YES
Reasoning: Supports clarity, accountability, efficiency, and the transition from ideals to enforceable governance.(1) Th eidea that it isnt enforceable is well understood amongst those of us who work and live here, however I do believe in a code of conduct that does require Dreps to live within a set of rules that maintains civility, keeps a moral compass which insures that everything we do is meant to improve the lives of those users who rely on us. We are here to improve every aspect of Cardano life, while attemtpting to live in a "Cant be Evil" world, which currently, technically isnt actually possible. This means its on us to do the right thing for the right reasons everytime.
- Yes23.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes22M ₳Rationale
My vote is a decisive YES for the ratification of Constitution v2.3.
This is a critical and necessary step in the maturation of our on-chain governance framework.
While the entire document represents an improvement in clarity and simplicity, one change stands above all others: the universal application of treasury safeguards to all withdrawal actions.
In my experience as a dRep, I have observed numerous well-crafted proposals for several hundred thousand ADA. While persuasive on the surface, they often fell into a grey area, lacking the rigorous financial oversight and mandatory audit requirements that were previously reserved only for multi-million ADA projects. This has been a significant and concerning loophole.
Version 2.3 closes this loophole decisively. By mandating that every treasury withdrawal, regardless of size, be subject to the highest standards of administration and independent auditing, we are fundamentally strengthening the security and integrity of our collective Treasury.
While the removal of the Budget Info Action is a notable change to our process, I view it as a more than acceptable trade-off. We are exchanging a procedural step for a foundational upgrade in accountability. This vote ensures that every single lovelace is treated with the same level of scrutiny, reinforcing trust and ensuring the long-term sustainability of our ecosystem.
- Yes21.5M ₳No rationale
- No21.5M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution v2.3 proposal for many of the same reasons laid out in my previous vote on v2.0 which can be found at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hephy-io/mainnet/refs/heads/main/drep_rationales/GA063-constitution-v2.jsonld (or transaction hash: 8474b8633cde93e34da9ee905b30a79158ec4cd6e41f24656f24d43a5fca902c).
In a nutshell, I feel that it is too many changes at once and I would still like to see more representation. The Constitution is still not even 12 months old at this point and while it has provisions for amendments and is to be considered a “living document” I still find myself questioning at what point an amendment becomes a full-scale rewrite. It has taken some time for Cardano governance processes to find their feet and my concern is that such large-scale changes could lead to more confusion due to the number of changes. If any particular article or section is causing a common pain point for the Cardano governance process and/or ecosystem progress, submit an amendment to just fix that, work on one area at a time. Large scale rewrites risk things being missed or overlooked in order to satisfy one particular pain point elsewhere.
I am also cautious regarding the approach whereby feedback is requested and urgent deadlines are given on social channels. I appreciate the desire to want to keep the conversation at the forefront of Cardano governance but putting time limits and rushing feedback in this manner with posts like, “I am still accepting feedback until MONTH DAY at HH:MM UTC”, almost makes this update process feel more personal rather than in the greater public interest. All ada holders should have the opportunity to have their voice heard and my concern is for those ada holders who are not active on social channels like X who may be being left out by this approach so far, despite the level of feedback that has been collected from active X accounts.
I see that there is currently work underway on formalising a Constitutional Amendment process and I am more inclined to wait and see the outcomes of this endeavour before entertaining any further update constitution proposals with this number of changes.
- Yes21.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes20.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes20.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes19.9M ₳Rationale
I approve this Cardano Constitution iteration