Rationale highlights

Why some of the largest DReps voted for and against, in their own words.

• Yoroi W₳llet

  Yes584.2M ₳

  Summary Yoroi DRep votes YES on the governance action to adopt Cardano Constitution v2.4. This decision reflects our assessment that the revisions in this version directly address the concerns we raised in v2.3 and restore clarity in key areas of governance...

  Summary

  Yoroi DRep votes YES on the governance action to adopt Cardano Constitution v2.4. This decision reflects our assessment that the revisions in this version directly address the concerns we raised in v2.3 and restore clarity in key areas of governance and accountability.

  Rationale

  • Audit Requirements

  The proposal reverts audit-related provisions to the v1.0 wording, resolving our previous concerns regarding ambiguity over responsibility, funding, and execution. Returning to language that is already operational and familiar within the ecosystem removes the uncertainty introduced in v2.3.

  • Custodian Consent and ADA Ownership

  Revisions made in v2.3 around custodial authority and terminology have been rolled back. The restoration of “ADA owner” terminology and the reversion of custodial provisions to their v1.0 form directly address our concerns around user consent and the potential concentration of governance power among custodial entities.

  Conclusion

  Yoroi’s YES vote reflects recognition that the proposal has substantively responded to previously raised concerns and represents a constructive step forward from the current v1.0 Constitution. We view the Constitution as a living document that will continue to benefit from iterative refinement, and we thank Yuta for his responsiveness, openness to feedback, and continued leadership in guiding this process.

• YUTA

  Yes435.8M ₳

  My reasons for voting YES on "CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ​​ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.4" are well summarized in the "The proposed changes aim to " description in the governance action metadata: Simplify governance by removing non-binding expectations and redundant...

  My reasons for voting YES on "CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ​​ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.4" are well summarized in the "The proposed changes aim to
  " description in the governance action metadata:

  1. Simplify governance by removing non-binding expectations and redundant mechanisms like Budget Info Action.
  2. Improve clarity and consistency through unified terminology, added definitions, and streamlined provisions.
  3. Strengthen accountability by applying treasury audit safeguards universally and ensuring proposal documents remain immutable.
     However, I will be regularly reviewing community rationales voting NO and listening carefully to any opposing arguments.

  I also thank EMURGO for their three pieces of feedback. I did not identify any significant issues with incorporating EMURGO's feedback.

  I have no financial interest in the creation of this Constitution at this time, so while there may be some bias as the creator of the governance action, there is no conflict of interest.

  私が、「CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.4」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「The proposed changes aim to
  」の記述によく要約されています。

  1. 強制力のない期待事項や、予算情報アクションのような冗長なメカニズムを排除することで、ガバナンスを簡素化する。
  2. 用語の統一、定義の追加、規定の簡素化を通じて、明確性と一貫性を向上させる。
  3. 財務監査の安全策を普遍的に適用し、提案文書が変更不可能であることを保証することで、説明責任を強化する。
     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。

  また、私はEMURGOの３つのフィードバックにも感謝します。EMURGOのフィードバックを反映することに関して、私は特に重大な問題を特定しませんでした。

  なお、私はこの憲法の制定によって金銭的な利益を得ることは現時点でありません。よってガバナンスアクションの作成者としての一定のバイアスがある可能性がありますが、利益相反はありません。

• Army of Spies

  No84.3M ₳

  I am voting "No" yet again on this amendment to the constitution and the reasons are largely the same as my previous votes. Please see my previous explanations. Many of the grammatical and other smaller changes are marginal improvements. I may even be...

  I am voting "No" yet again on this amendment to the constitution and the reasons are largely the same as my previous votes. Please see my previous explanations. Many of the grammatical and other smaller changes are marginal improvements. I may even be inclined toward some of the larger changes. However, on balance, I cannot agree with this overall amendment to the constitution. I do not agree with many of the substantive changes. They are not unreasonable or illogical. But, they do not seem like an improvement from my perspective. For instance, and as I have already explained with every past version of this amendment, I value much of the aspirational language that has been deleted. The Cardano Community is an aspirational community. Its constitution should also be aspirational. Some of the verbiage changes do not seem necessary at all. It seems like someone just wanted to change the language to suit their own style and preferences. I do not believe we should be changing the constitution just to satisfy someone's minor word choice preferences without some overriding purpose. The constitution was a huge undertaking for the Cardano Community and we should only be changing it if there is some substantial reason. I also do not believe this is an acceptable method to propose changes to a legal document. I have mentioned this over and over again with each iteration of this proposed amendment. An inline "tracked changes" redline is the standard for proposing changes in this type of legal document. The side-by-side document method is a terrible method for showing changes in a legal document. The original version of a section may show up several pages above the new edited version. This is essentially unreadable if you are actually trying to understand the changes and would be laughed out of the room in most legal settings since it's a great tool to obscure the true magnitude of changes. Inline "tracked changes" redlines are the standard and should be used with something as important as the Cardano constitution. Again, I have mentioned this over and over again with each new version of this amendment. Here's an example of an inline "tracked changes" redline in a lawmaking setting: https://rules.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/rules.house.gov/files/documents/bill-to-bill_bills-119pih_to_rcp_119-3_final.pdf. That is the way that changes to legal documents should be presented so that they can be read in a comprehensible manner.

• Hephaestus Stake Pool [HEPHY]

  No21.5M ₳

  I am voting NO to replace the Constitution with the proposed constitution v2.4 for the same reasons as outlined in previous votes which can be found in transaction hash 8474b8633cde93e34da9ee905b30a79158ec4cd6e41f24656f24d43a5fca902c from five months and...

  I am voting NO to replace the Constitution with the proposed constitution v2.4 for the same reasons as outlined in previous votes which can be found in transaction hash 8474b8633cde93e34da9ee905b30a79158ec4cd6e41f24656f24d43a5fca902c from five months and four days ago, and 07c64c03ff524e8a76be9dad5df8c3a4b32c0e383ce611bd8aec118a8b791b4b from two months and fourteen days ago. The current Constitution has barely just turned twelve months old and here I am voting on proposed changes for the third time in six months. While I appreciate that the current Constitution identifies itself as a “living document” with future amendments encouraged when the community and ecosystem deem it necessary, it also isn’t an iOS update.

  There is a reason that updating the constitution has such a high threshold of 75% and that it is because it is the most fundamental guiding document for Cardano governance. While amendments may be necessary, attempts to change it so often risks undermining the legitimacy of the document itself. Admittedly, one of these proposals has yet to pass but here we are, voting on it for the third time in six months and my timeline is currently filled with hurried calls to vote, daily callouts to large voting power DReps and unhappy posts when anyone dares to vote or comment negatively against the proposal. It begins to raise another question as to how much of this is for the benefit of the ecosystem and how much is for personal achievement at this point.

  I have previously voted no on the grounds of the large number of changes at once and for the level of accessibility for the community to participate. I still feel that there are too many changes at once here and it feels as though this is a product of attempting to please everyone at once in order to get one of these proposals passed. The proposer has argued in favour of bulk changes because individual updates could risk voter fatigue and lower turnouts over time, yet here we are for the third time in six months trying to pass a bulk edit to the Constitution. A process which in itself is already wearing thin for some and highlights that constitutional updates should be agreed upon through iteration rather than attrition. If DReps start to vote yes in the hope that they don’t have to face yet another update constitution vote three months down the line, this would also undermine the legitimacy of any eventually approved update.

  These are largely procedural issues rather than content issues but they are important as the process should be informing the content. I am not saying that any amendments should go through as vigorous a process as the current Constitution and while it has been argued that there has been large community input already and that the past governance actions form part of that process, where is the evidence included in this particular proposal? The proposal simply lists the constitution text changes and links to documentation showing those changes. There are no links to any collaborative documentation or attribution of changes made to those who have suggested the edits. I know at least one document exists as it has been shared on social media and it really should be linked in this proposal as part of the supporting links to demonstrate the level of community contribution. Consider the depth of supporting links in the proposal for the currently active Constitution (https://ipfs.blockfrost.dev/ipfs/bafkreiehcekhhsq34ccezwn46brg3euj6tbs4g4yjkav34ukqvbnzaya2a) in contrast to supporting links provided in this proposal (https://ipfs.blockfrost.dev/ipfs/bafkreigxpweqv2rnh7ajt5hzdq6gikogmaq3nbyof5uvdntc4hkg52ghqy). See also the level of supporting documentation of recorded community feedback for the “Cardano 2030” Info Action (gov_action18fd7jwa06fksmwumlcvlft8v4guvaa672qsp6xgenekvs4kmvcqsq8cqks4) also currently up for vote at the moment.

  Another issue I have regarding the content of the proposal is the adherence to the Constitution Specification as outlined in CIP-120. There is at least one glaringly obvious instance where text does not conform to the 80-character per line limit as outlined in CIP-120. Article II, Section 7, item 4 “as a part of such funding request to cover the cost of periodic independent audits and the implementation of oversight metrics as to the use of such ada.” CIP-120 “aims to describe a standardized technical form for the Cardano Constitution to enhance the accessibility and safety of the document.” While only currently implemented by one governance tool, if this proposed constitution is to be around for a long-time, it would be beneficial to future-proof the text so that it is compatible with more governance tooling that may seek to implement this CIP going forward.

  My reservations are largely procedural issues and I am left with questions regarding the evidence of the level of community collaboration. How many of the original Constitutional Delegates and Alternates have given feedback on this current proposal? How much interaction has taken place between the proposer and Intersect Civics Committee? I know there is at least one attempt to formalise an amendment process under the Civics Committee and while Intersect doesn’t have to be the sole arbiter of governance processes in a permissionless system, the Civics Committee is one current example of an attempt to at least define a constitutional amendment process. It should be noted that this is a (singular) process and not the (definitive) process currently being worked on by the Constitutional Amendment Process (CAP) Working Group.