CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.4
189 DReps voted · 71 with a rationale · 6 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Abstain17.3M ₳Rationale
CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.4
- Yes16.7M ₳Rationale
We support these constitutional updates because they strengthen governance clarity, treasury accountability, and proposal integrity without expanding central authority. Removing redundant mechanisms, enforcing immutability of proposal documents, and applying audit safeguards uniformly across all treasury withdrawals improves long-term sustainability and reduces governance risk. Overall, this is a pragmatic hardening of Cardano’s governance framework that benefits DReps, builders, and the ecosystem.
- Yes14.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain13.3M ₳Rationale
This governance action proposes adoption of Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution v2.4. RCADA recognises that v2.4 contains several material improvements that strengthen governance integrity and treasury discipline, including clearer definitions and terminology, stronger audit and accountability safeguards applied uniformly across treasury withdrawals, and an important requirement that proposal documents referenced by URL remain immutable after submission. These changes address real weaknesses identified during early governance operation and represent a net technical improvement over prior versions.
However, RCADA is applying a high-bar amendment lens for constitutional changes, under which improvements in legal clarity must be accompanied by demonstrable gains in decentralization resilience, accountability, and governance quality in practice. Under this standard, a constitutional update must do more than streamline text or remove ambiguity; it must strengthen Cardano’s ability to resist capture, coordinate governance effectively, and maintain legitimacy over time.
While v2.4 improves enforceability, it also removes multiple non-binding “expectations” and “encouragement” clauses, as well as constitutional requirements related to governance conduct. RCADA is not convinced that removing these normative guardrails—without a clearly defined replacement path—strengthens Cardano’s long-term governance posture. Constitutions do not only define enforceable minimums; they also help shape institutional behaviour and shared expectations that support decentralization in practice. Eliminating these elements risks narrowing the Constitution to a purely transactional document, reducing its role in reinforcing governance culture and accountability norms.
RCADA is also cautious about the removal of the Budget Info Action mechanism. Consolidating requirements into Treasury Withdrawal actions may simplify governance flow, but it also reduces early-stage deliberation and strategic signalling. This change shifts more governance pressure onto high-stakes execution votes, increasing cognitive load on DReps and potentially reducing the quality of deliberation, particularly in the absence of explicit pacing, coordination, or replacement mechanisms anchored in the Constitution itself.
Additionally, RCADA notes that parts of the proposal rationale emphasise pragmatic reversions intended to secure broader stakeholder alignment. While broad alignment is often necessary for constitutional adoption, amendments should ultimately be justified by their objective contribution to governance quality rather than their likelihood of passage. This reinforces RCADA’s view that v2.4, while improved, should not be treated as final, and that future constitutional refinement should more directly address decentralization safeguards, amendment processes, and institutional accountability expectations.
While v2.4 represents a net technical improvement over prior versions, RCADA does not consider the remaining governance risks to be marginal or merely cosmetic at the constitutional level.
For these reasons, RCADA is choosing to Abstain.
This abstention is not opposition to governance maturation, nor a rejection of the improvements included in v2.4. Rather, it is a constructive signal that constitutional amendments should meet a higher standard than cleaner text alone: they should demonstrably strengthen decentralization, accountability, and long-term resilience, and where non-binding guardrails are removed, clear and socially anchored replacement mechanisms should be defined.
RCADA would welcome follow-up actions or supporting standards that clarify acceptable immutability practices for proposal documents, define a clear and community-legitimised constitutional amendment process, and ensure that the removal of normative clauses does not inadvertently weaken capture resistance or governance legitimacy over time.
- Yes12.1M ₳Rationale
As Wada DRep, we vote yes on this constitutional update governance action, based on the clear progress made in addressing concerns we raised in earlier iterations and the overall improvement in clarity, structure, and intent reflected in the current version. In prior drafts, our reservations centered on the lack of sufficiently explicit amendment pathways, the risk of over-constitutionalizing operational matters, and ambiguity around how supporting governance instruments such as codes of conduct would relate to the Constitution itself. In this iteration, those concerns have been meaningfully resolved through clearer articulation of the constitutional amendment process, improved separation between constitutional guardrails and operational governance tools, and a more disciplined framing of responsibilities across governance actors. This has increased our confidence that the document is not only principled, but also workable in practice.
We are particularly satisfied that this version demonstrates a stronger respect for governance maturity. Rather than attempting to solve every governance challenge at the constitutional layer, it establishes durable foundations while leaving appropriate flexibility for future community-driven evolution. This addresses our earlier concern that premature rigidity could hinder learning, adaptation, and experimentation at a time when Cardano’s on-chain governance structures are still bedding in. The current update strikes a more balanced posture, one that protects legitimacy without constraining progress.
We also wish to commend Yuta for the resilience, patience, and good faith demonstrated throughout this process. Iterating on a constitutional document in a live, decentralised ecosystem is inherently challenging, particularly when feedback is diverse, sometimes conflicting, and publicly scrutinised. The willingness to engage constructively with critique, refine proposals, and return with improved drafts sets a strong example for governance leadership within Cardano. It is precisely this kind of stewardship that helps build long-term trust in our governance institutions.
Finally, we encourage other community members to draw inspiration from this process and participate meaningfully in Cardano governance, whether by actively delegating their stake, contributing to discussions, or supporting governance actions with thoughtful review and feedback. Sustainable governance depends not only on well-written constitutional texts, but on a community willing to engage responsibly and in good faith. On that basis, and with our earlier concerns now fairly addressed, we are comfortable lending our support to this governance action at this stage.
- Yes11.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes8.8M ₳Rationale
本提案に賛成します。Cardano憲法 v2.4 は、拘束力のない規定を整理し、ガバナンスのルールをより明確かつ実務的にすることで、意思決定の透明性と一貫性をさらに高める重要な更新だと考えます。\n\nI vote Yes on this proposal. Cardano Constitution v2.4 is an important update that streamlines non-binding provisions and clarifies governance rules, further strengthening transparency and consistency in decision-making.
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes7.6M ₳Rationale
I have been following this document's genesis from the very beginning and overall, I support the intention behind it. The idea is to streamline the constitution into a more manageable, applicable document. The proposal - does recognize that the the “budget layer” in the existing constitution may creates more ambiguity than control. Right now, the budget mechanism is conceptually useful, but structurally awkward and easy to turn into confusion. The current V1 of the budget clauses explicitly allow multiple budgets and variable time periods (shorter or longer) - this is a recipe for a mess that we have already seen appear. It leads to questions about which budget is in effect and which budget supersedes the other budget - and how long do the multiple budgets last. This causes governance fatigue and an illusion of control. Yes, budgets, in theory, force prioritization - so this removal of a messy budget process can lead to ad-hoc, proposal-by-proposal spending unless the ecosystem creates a respected off-chain planning cycle. Food for thought, there. However, v 2.4 does strengthen per-withdrawal accountability where it matters.
The Defined Terms block up front is welcome and the minor corrections, tweaks and fixes throughout the document help it's overall clarity - which is a win.
There has been a back and forth over ADA holder vs ADA owner - and as a general matter of principle I would side with the ADA owner side of the argument as owners are the rightful beneficiary. However, ADA holder sort of matches how the ledger actually works. Cardano tracks control of UTxOs/keys, not legal title. Ownership is a legal concept that depends on facts the chain can’t see. However, v2.4 reverts back to the original constitution in this segment, so we are not changing anything here. Maybe there was a case for including something about ADA Owner in the Defined Terms of v.24. Owner becomes legally fuzzy - allowing multiple claims of ownership - and the the outright legal owner of a pooled wallet can vary based on legal details, terms of service, jurisdiction, etc. Anyhow, yes.
- Yes7.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.9M ₳Rationale
I have been increasingly more supportive of these constitutional changes as the revisions have gone on. I am in support of v2.4 of the constitution proposed to bring additional clarity and to help streamline some of the processes when it comes to treasury withdrawals.
- Yes5.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
All reasonable revisions.
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
STORM Partners votes YES on the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution v2.4. This update makes the constitution more enforceable and easier to operate by removing non-binding language and eliminating the Budget Info Action mechanism, while keeping and clarifying treasury safeguards directly inside Treasury Withdrawal standards, including audit and oversight requirements. We also support the immutability requirement for proposal documents because it reduces the risk of post-submission bait-and-switch and strengthens governance integrity.
- Yes4.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳Rationale
I support the proposed changes to the Constitution and concur with Emurgo's objections regarding the wording used in the previous version.
- Yes4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.4" (gov_action1jxne7hynfd7frcczwumd2eggps4kvy0msjztz9t0mutpy870ksgqqp6vp3p), pois esta nova versão da Constituição Cardano incorpora melhorias fundamentais para o amadurecimento da governança. Entre os avanços mais relevantes, destacamos a remoção da Ação de Informação Orçamentária, cujos requisitos foram devidamente incorporados à Ação de Governança de Saque do Tesouro, promovendo maior clareza e eficiência processual. A versão também introduz a exigência de que documentos hospedados em URLs sejam imutáveis, reforçando a transparência, a rastreabilidade e a segurança jurídica dos processos. Além disso, a atualização contempla correções de erros de digitação, simplificações de redação e unificação de terminologia, contribuindo para um texto mais claro, consistente e alinhado às melhores práticas institucionais da governança on-chain da Cardano.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action "CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.4" (gov_action1jxne7hynfd7frcczwumd2eggps4kvy0msjztz9t0mutpy870ksgqqp6vp3p), because this new version of the Cardano Constitution introduces fundamental improvements to the maturity of governance. Among the most relevant enhancements is the removal of the Budget Information Action, whose requirements have been properly incorporated into the Treasury Withdrawal Governance Action, resulting in greater clarity and procedural efficiency. The update also introduces the requirement that documents hosted via URLs must be immutable, strengthening transparency, traceability, and legal certainty in governance processes. In addition, the revision includes corrections of typographical errors, simplified wording, and terminology unification, contributing to a clearer, more consistent text aligned with best institutional practices for Cardano’s on-chain governance. - Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.8M ₳No rationale
- Abstain3.1M ₳Rationale
As I have not had time yet to properly review this proposal, I am voting Abstain for now.
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
v2.4 は、直前の v2.3 に対して提起された複数の懸念、とりわけ主要DRepから示された文言上の懸念を踏まえ、それらを修正した改訂版として提出されています。本提案は、v2.3 が目指したガバナンスの簡素化と実効性向上という方向性を維持しつつ、解釈上の不確実性を低減し、より広い合意に耐えうる形へと調整されたものです。特に、Treasury Withdrawal における監査・説明責任の明確化や、提案文書の不可変性の明文化は、ガバナンスの信頼性を高める重要な改善と評価します。
以上の理由から、私は v2.3 に引き続き、v2.4 に賛成します。
Version 2.4 is submitted as a revised proposal that addresses concerns raised during the review of v2.3, particularly wording-related concerns expressed by major DReps. It preserves the original intent of v2.3 to simplify governance and improve enforceability, while reducing ambiguity and improving clarity.
The clarification of treasury accountability and the explicit requirement for proposal immutability further strengthen trust in the governance process. For these reasons, and consistent with my position on v2.3, I support Constitution v2.4. - Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5M ₳Rationale
Appreciate the efforts to streamline the proposal process. I was no on the first couple versions but we have refined the changes down and I like where this is at now.
- Yes2.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- No2.1M ₳Rationale
We continue to vote NO on this action because of poor legal writing, the large number of changes, the vague legal terms, and the unpredictable consequences in interpretation.
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
I support Constitution v2.4 as it strengthens Cardano governance through improved clarity, integrity, and accountability without changing power dynamics or weakening safeguards. By removing non-binding expectations, the Constitution is reaffirmed as an enforceable framework rather than advisory guidance; by integrating Budget Info requirements directly into Treasury Withdrawals, oversight is simplified and applied where funds actually move; and by mandating proposal document immutability, voter trust and governance integrity are materially improved. The reversion of specific wording to address EMURGO’s concerns reflects a pragmatic, consensus-driven approach that supports constitutional legitimacy and governance stability at this stage of Cardano’s decentralisation.
- Abstain1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
Voting Yes. Constitution v2.4 simplifies governance by removing redundant and non-binding mechanisms, ensures proposal documents are stored immutably, and applies safeguards to treasury withdrawals. It also addresses concerns from v2.3 and adds definitions for key terminology.
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳Rationale
Although I would like to see the need for a separate budget info action removed, not a single one of my concerns with the previous version has been handled. Hence I have no choice to vote ❌ NO on this version either.
- No1.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale