CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.4
189 DReps voted · 71 with a rationale · 6 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes584.2M ₳Rationale
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.
- Yes435.8M ₳Rationale
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 mechanisms like Budget Info Action.
- Improve clarity and consistency through unified terminology, added definitions, and streamlined provisions.
- 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。- 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。
- 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。
- 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。
- Yes332.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes293M ₳Rationale
Summary
EMURGO as DRep votes YES on the governance action titled Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution v2.4 with the rationale outlined below.
Rationale
EMURGO appreciates Yuta’s continued leadership and constructive engagement with community feedback in advancing the Cardano Constitution. Since our previous NO vote on v2.3, several of our key concerns have been addressed in v2.4, justifying a change in our voting position.
In particular, revisions to terminology related to ADA ownership and custodianship improve clarity around consent and representation. The removal of unenforceable expectation clauses strengthens the Constitution’s role as a binding and operational governance document.
We also support the simplification of the governance process through the removal of the mandatory Budget Info Action, while noting positively that enhanced accountability and audit requirements continue to apply consistently to all Treasury Withdrawal governance actions, preserving core fiscal safeguards.
Overall, v2.4 represents a material improvement over the current v1.0 Constitution and advances Cardano’s governance in a more practical, enforceable, and ecosystem aligned direction. We view this Constitution as a work in progress and are hopeful that, over time, the ecosystem will continue to develop more structured and iterative processes to refine its provisions, reduce remaining ambiguities, and ensure the Constitution performs as effectively as possible in practice. For these reasons, EMURGO votes yes.
- Yes222.9M ₳Rationale
TL;DR: EDC voted YES on gov_action1jxne7hynfd7frcczwumd2eggps4kvy0msjztz9t0mutpy870ksgqqp6vp3p;
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 Constitution v2.4 Governance Action. This version improves on the current Constitution by 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.
Our support for this governance action is based on three key factors:
The Compromise: "Ada Owner" vs. "Ada Holder" We view the reversion of the term "ada Holder" to "ada owner" as less precise, as it blurs the distinction between protocol-level access (holding keys) and legal ownership rights. However, we accept this regression to accommodate the concerns of other major stakeholders and unblock the constitutional amendment process.
The Improvement: Streamlined Treasury & Governance Efficiency We endorse the removal of the Budget Info Action requirement. This change aligns with our previous assessments (for v2.0 and v2.3), where we advocated for reducing bureaucratic friction. By consolidating the information requirements directly into the Treasury Withdrawal action, we eliminate a redundant administrative step without sacrificing accountability. This streamlining is essential to ensure the treasury can be deployed efficiently to support ecosystem growth and maintenance. Additionally, the new requirement for immutable proposal documents is an important security upgrade that protects the integrity of the governance process.
The Continuity: A Maturing Framework This version continues the work of maturing the Constitution from an aspirational document to an enforceable rulebook. The removal of non-binding "expectations" (such as Codes of Conduct) clarifies the document’s purpose: it is a set of hard rules for the ledger, not a social manifesto. This focus on enforceability is a necessary evolution for long-term stability.
The Cardano Foundation votes YES. Constitution v2.4 represents a necessary improvement to Cardano’s governance model, with a focus on more efficient, less bureaucratic processes.
---> **_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 have decided to vote YES for the proposal: CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.4
I support the proposed changes to the Cardano Constitution because they improve clarity, coherence, and practical enforceability without undermining decentralization.
The revisions reduce ambiguity, better align the Constitution with Cardano’s on-chain governance mechanisms, and clarify roles and responsibilities in a way that strengthens accountability and decision-making. I also agree with the clarification around governance action sequencing, in particular that Info actions should not be used to pre-empt or condition treasury withdrawals. This simplification makes the process clearer and helps preserve voter sovereignty.
Overall, these changes represent a sensible evolution toward a more robust, transparent, and effective governance framework for the Cardano ecosystem.
- Yes88.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes86M ₳Rationale
SIPO DRep Position (YES)
SIPO DRep votes YES on the governance action
“CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.4.”I consider this proposal to be a highly important and practical step toward advancing Cardano’s governance into its next stage of maturity.
- Clarifying the Constitution as a Binding Rulebook
Constitution v2.4 removes “Expectations” and “Encouragement” clauses that were aspirational in nature and not legally or procedurally enforceable.
SIPO DRep does not see this as a weakening of the Constitution.
On the contrary, we view it as a clarification and strengthening of its role.A constitution should serve as the highest-level, enforceable rulebook for on-chain governance.
Limiting it to provisions that can actually be enforced and used as a basis for decisions improves legal clarity and governance reliability.- Supporting DRep Accountability and Explainability
As a DRep, SIPO places strong importance on being able to clearly explain our voting decisions after the fact.
The improvements in v2.4 — including clearer definitions, unified terminology, and streamlined wording — reduce ambiguity and make governance decisions easier to justify based on rules rather than interpretation.
We believe this structure supports DReps in fulfilling their responsibilities in a transparent and accountable manner.
- Strong Support for Proposal Document Immutability
The requirement introduced in ARTICLE II Section 6 — that proposal documents hosted at submitted URLs must be immutable — is particularly important to SIPO DRep.
This protects the integrity of governance by preventing:
• Post-vote changes to proposals
• Shifts in interpretation after voting
• Unfair transfer of responsibility to DRepsIt creates a safer environment for informed and responsible voting and significantly strengthens trust in the governance process.
- Consistent Accountability for Treasury Withdrawals
We support the removal of the Budget Info Action as a sensible simplification of governance procedures.
At the same time, we appreciate that all accountability and audit requirements have been fully carried over and applied consistently to all Treasury Withdrawal Governance Actions.
This ensures that transparency and oversight of treasury spending are preserved and strengthened, not weakened.
SIPO DRep prioritizes long-term trust and sustainability over short-term procedural convenience.
- A Pragmatic and Consensus-Oriented Revision
Version 2.4 incorporates feedback from EMURGO by reverting certain wording changes introduced in v2.3.
We view this not as a regression, but as a pragmatic adjustment to ensure that the Constitution remains broadly supported and operational in practice.
A constitution must function within the realities of stakeholder consensus.
Respecting that reality reflects Cardano’s mature and responsible approach to governance.- Final Assessment by SIPO DRep
Based on the above considerations, SIPO DRep concludes that Constitution v2.4:
• Advances Cardano governance from ideals toward enforceable institutional design
• Improves clarity, accountability, and decision integrity for DReps
• Strengthens long-term trust in treasury governance and the broader ecosystemFor these reasons, SIPO DRep votes YES on this proposal.
SIPO will continue to participate in Cardano governance with a focus on transparency, accountability, and the long-term health of the ecosystem.
⸻
SIPO DRepの立場（YES）
SIPO DRepは、本ガバナンスアクション
「CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.4」
に対して、賛成（YES）を投じます。本提案は、Cardanoのガバナンスを次の段階へ進めるための、非常に重要で現実的な憲法改訂であると評価しています。
- 憲法を「理想」から「拘束力あるルール」へ明確化している点を評価します
Constitution v2.4では、これまで憲法に含まれていた
• 期待（Expectations）
• 推奨（Encouragement）
といった、法的・制度的には拘束力を持たない条文が整理・削除されています。SIPO DRepは、これは憲法の価値を下げる変更ではなく、
憲法の役割を明確にし、むしろ強化する改訂だと考えています。憲法は、オンチェーン・ガバナンスにおける最上位ルールとして、
「強制できること」「判断の根拠となること」に限定されるべきです。守られるかどうかが不明確な理想論を憲法に残すよりも、
実際に判断と責任を伴うルールだけを残す方が、
DRep・SPO・ada保有者すべてにとって健全だと考えます。- DRepの説明責任を支える構造になっている点を重視します
SIPOはDRepとして、
「なぜその判断をしたのかを、後からでも説明できること」
を非常に重視しています。本提案で導入された、
• 用語定義の明確化
• 文言の統一
• 解釈の余地を減らす整理は、DRepが恣意的ではなく、ルールに基づいて判断していることを示しやすくする改訂です。
これはDRepの責任を重くするものではなく、
DRepが責任を果たしやすくするための制度整備だと評価しています。- 提案ドキュメントの「不可変性」要件を高く評価します
ARTICLE II Section 6 に追加された、
「提出されたURL上の文書は immutable（変更不可）でなければならない」
という要件は、SIPO DRepとして特に重要だと考えています。この要件により、
• 投票後に提案内容が変更されるリスク
• 解釈のすり替え
• DRepに対する不当な責任転嫁が制度的に防がれます。
これはガバナンスの信頼性を高めるだけでなく、
DRepが安心して判断できる環境を作る重要な防御策です。- Treasuryに関する説明責任と監査の一貫性を支持します
Budget Info Actionの廃止については、
ガバナンスを簡素化し、重複を解消する合理的な判断だと考えています。同時に、本提案では、
Budget Info Actionで求められていた要件を
すべての Treasury Withdrawal に確実に適用する形に再整理しています。これにより、
• Treasury支出に対する説明責任
• 監査・透明性
• コミュニティからの信頼が弱まることはなく、むしろ一貫性が高まります。
SIPO DRepは、
短期的な利便性よりも、長期的な信頼性を重視するこの設計を支持します。- 合意形成を重視した現実的な改訂である点を評価します
v2.4では、EMURGOからのフィードバックを受け、
v2.3で導入された一部の文言が v1.0 の表現に戻されています。SIPO DRepは、これを後退ではなく、
Cardanoガバナンスが実際に機能し続けるための現実的な調整だと受け止めています。憲法は、形式的に成立するだけでなく、
主要なステークホルダーの合意のもとで運用されてこそ意味があります。分断を避け、合意を積み重ねる姿勢は、
Cardanoらしい成熟したガバナンスの姿だと考えます。- SIPO DRepとしての総合判断
以上の理由から、SIPO DRepは、
• 本提案がCardanoガバナンスを
「理想中心」から「制度中心」へと進化させること
• DRepの説明責任と判断の正当性を支える構造になっていること
• Treasuryを含む長期的な信頼性を高める内容であることを評価し、本提案に 賛成（YES） を投じます。
今後もSIPO DRepは、
Cardanoが長期にわたって信頼される公共的ブロックチェーンとして成長していくために、
責任ある判断と、その理由の共有を続けていきます。 - No84.3M ₳Rationale
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.
- Yes77.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes76.8M ₳Rationale
I support this.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
The constitution must be simplified and ambiguity removed wherever possible. The concept of budget info actions must be removed entirely.
- Yes75.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes74.5M ₳Rationale
I voted YES on the governance action to adopt Cardano Constitution v2.4.
I consider this proposal to be a revision that clarifies the role of the Cardano Constitution and strengthens the soundness and credibility of governance operations.
First, the removal of non-binding expectations and encouragements is appropriate, as it refines the Constitution into a normative document that is actually applied and interpreted, rather than a collection of aspirational statements. This change aligns with the fundamental nature of a constitutional framework.
In addition, the removal of the Budget Info Action and the integration of its requirements into Treasury Withdrawal governance actions simplifies the governance structure without weakening transparency or audit requirements. Instead, this change clarifies responsibility and improves practical effectiveness.
Furthermore, explicitly defining the immutability of proposal documents is an important improvement that prevents modifications after submission and enhances trust in on-chain governance. The design that applies audit and oversight requirements to all treasury withdrawals also strengthens transparency and accountability in treasury management.
With respect to the changes from v2.3 to v2.4, reverting certain wording to the original v1.0 expressions in response to concerns raised by EMURGO should be understood as a pragmatic and reasonable decision to avoid governance stagnation and maintain broad consensus. These adjustments do not undermine the fundamental principles or the substantive framework of the Constitution.
Based on these considerations, I conclude that this proposal is consistent with the intent of the Cardano Constitution and the existing governance framework, and that it contributes to improved clarity, transparency, and long-term operational stability.
For these reasons, I voted YES on this governance action.私は、Cardano Constitution v2.4 を採択する本ガバナンスアクションについて、YES（賛成）で投票しました。
本提案は、Cardano 憲法の役割をより明確にし、ガバナンス運用の健全性と信頼性を高める改定であると判断しています。
まず、拘束力を持たない期待事項や推奨事項（Expectations / Encouragement）が削除された点は、憲法を「実際に適用・判断される規範文書」として整理するものであり、憲法の性質に照らして妥当です。
また、Budget Info Action の廃止と Treasury Withdrawal ガバナンスアクションへの要件統合は、ガバナンス構造を簡素化する一方で、透明性や監査要件を弱めるものではなく、むしろ責任と実効性を明確化する変更だと評価しています。
さらに、提案書類の不変性（immutability）を明文化した点は、提案提出後の内容変更を防ぎ、オンチェーン・ガバナンスに対する信頼性を高める重要な改善です。
すべてのトレジャリー引き出しに監査および監督要件を適用する設計も、資金管理の透明性と説明責任を強化するものです。v2.3 から v2.4 において、EMURGO から示された懸念を踏まえ、特定の文言を v1.0 の表現に差し戻した点については、ガバナンスの停滞を避け、広範な合意形成を維持するための現実的かつ合理的な判断であると受け止めています。
これらの修正は、憲法の基本原則や実質的な枠組みを損なうものではありません。以上を踏まえ、本提案は Cardano 憲法の趣旨および既存のガバナンス枠組みと整合しており、 制度の明確性、透明性、ならびに長期的な運用安定性の向上に寄与するものと判断しました。 そのため、僕は本ガバナンスアクションに YES で投票しました。
- Yes73.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES. v2.4 streamlines governance by removing redundant mechanisms while keeping strict audit safeguards. I commend the creator for their commitment to improving the constitution. The added requirement for immutable proposal documents is a vital upgrade for system integrity.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting YES. This update matures our governance framework by removing redundant "Budget Info Actions" while preserving fiscal discipline via universal audit safeguards.
I explicitly commend the proposal creator for their commitment to improving Cardano governance whilst listening to community feedback. Their work to streamline rules and enforce immutable proposal documents significantly strengthens our system integrity and accountability.
- Yes69.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes62.7M ₳Rationale
This version fixes the issues I had with earlier drafts.
Non-binding expectations and the Budget Info Action are removed. That keeps the Constitution focused on rules that can actually be enforced.
Proposal immutability is a solid step. Once submitted, documents cannot be changed. That protects trust.
Treasury audit and accountability rules now apply to all withdrawals. No gaps.
The EMURGO reversions are sensible. Broad DRep alignment matters for constitutional change.
Clearer. Tighter. Ready to move forward.
- Abstain53.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes50.5M ₳Rationale
Same rationale as previous iteration.
- No50.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes50M ₳Rationale
All the inaccuracies and misspellings I mentioned earlier have been fixed, so at this point, I see no reason to vote other than Yes.
- Yes48.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes47.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes42.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes40.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes38.1M ₳Rationale
Clearer and enforceable governance rules reduce ambiguity and risk.
Standardized treasury accountability and immutable proposals improve trust.
Support. - Yes37.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes34.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes34.3M ₳Rationale
Socious DRep supports the adoption of Cardano Constitution v2.4 to bring greater clarity and rigor to our decentralized governance. Our support is based on the following key refinements:
• Enforceability over Aspirations: By removing non-binding "expectations" and codes of conduct, the Constitution now focuses strictly on enforceable rules, reducing ambiguity for the Constitutional Committee and voters.
• Enhanced Security & Transparency: The requirement for immutable proposal documentation prevents post-submission changes, while universal audit safeguards ensure every Treasury withdrawal is held to the highest standard of accountability.
• Governance Simplification: Merging the Budget Info Action requirements directly into Treasury Withdrawal actions removes redundant layers, making the governance process more efficient without sacrificing oversight.
This update represents a necessary step in evolving Cardano’s foundational rules into a more mature and legally coherent document. - Yes33.5M ₳Rationale
Voting YES
Cardano Constitution v2.4 is a clear improvement. It removes non binding language, tightens definitions, enforces immutability of proposal documents, and extends audit and accountability safeguards to all treasury withdrawals, strengthening clarity, integrity, and governance efficiency.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Voting YES
Cardano Constitution v2.4 is a clear improvement. It removes non binding language, tightens definitions, enforces immutability of proposal documents, and extends audit and accountability safeguards to all treasury withdrawals, strengthening clarity, integrity, and governance efficiency.
- Yes31.4M ₳Rationale
In v2.4, the roles and responsibilities of proposers have been clarified, including stricter requirements for immutable documentation, audit funding, and transparent fund management. These changes increase accountability to the community and improve the overall transparency of Treasury-related activities.
For DReps and SPOs, the clearer standards and strengthened procedural requirements make it easier to evaluate proposals consistently.
Therefore, I support this proposal. - Yes31.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes30.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes27.9M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted27.9M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes7mo agoSuperseded
- Yes26.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes26.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes25.3M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on CARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.4. These changes help streamline governance and further clarify the constitution. I welcome YUTAs work.
- Yes23.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes22M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on the ratification of Constitution v2.4. This decision is a pragmatic one, balancing the pursuit of an ideal governance framework with the political reality of achieving consensus.
Version 2.4 retains the most critical improvements over v1.0 that were introduced in the previous iteration, v2.3. Specifically, it simplifies the governance process by removing the Budget Info Action and eliminates unenforceable "expectation" clauses. Most importantly, it still applies enhanced treasury safeguards to all withdrawal actions, a significant step forward for financial accountability.
However, I must acknowledge that this version is a compromise. The reversion of three clauses to their v1.0 wording, particularly the one concerning independent audits, is a notable step back from the stronger requirements proposed in v2.3. The original language in v2.3, which mandated the appointment of auditors and the delivery of reports, was superior to the v2.4 requirement of simply allocating a budget for audits.
This change was clearly made to secure the necessary consensus from major stakeholders like EMURGO, who voted against v2.3. In governance, progress is often incremental. A YES vote for v2.4 secures the vast majority of essential upgrades while acknowledging the need for broad alignment. It is a significant improvement over our current constitution and is preferable to a stalemate that leaves us with the outdated v1.0. We can, and should, seek to strengthen the audit requirements in a future amendment. For now, this is a necessary and positive step forward.
- Yes21.5M ₳No rationale
- NoChanged21.5M ₳Rationale
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.
Earlier votes
Abstain7mo agoSuperseded
Enough. We have just speedrun this community through 4 governance actions, all intertwined in the passing of the Critical Integrations Budget and associated treasury withdrawal. It’s almost the holidays, give people a break, I am voting ABSTAIN at this time and will review in the New Year.
- Yes21.1M ₳Rationale
SIDAN Lab is voting YES on adopting Constitution v2.4 because it improves clarity, enforceability, and governance integrity.
v2.4 removes non-binding aspirational clauses that are difficult to enforce, adds clearer defined terms, and strengthens trust by requiring proposal documents to be immutable after submission. It also consolidates accountability safeguards into Treasury Withdrawal standards, putting audit/oversight expectations where funds actually move. Finally, it incorporates major stakeholder feedback to preserve broad legitimacy while refining the Constitution based on early governance experience. - Yes20.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes20.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes19.9M ₳Rationale
I support this v2.4 to upgrade the Cardano Constitution v1.0 as it fixes a number of minor spelling / formatting issues, adds helpful definitions, streamlines the process overall, like removing redundant budget info actions or non-enforceable conduct rules. Treasury withdrawals benefit from clearer audits and accountability. I also agree that 'Ada owners' is the correct term to retain to protect against sybil attacks. The diff document v1.0 to v2.4 could have been formatted better for better readability, maybe this is something to look into for future revisions.
- Yes18.2M ₳No rationale