Cardano Constitution to Replace the Interim Constitution
341 DReps voted · 57 with a rationale · 11 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes17.4M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted17.3M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
Yes1y agoSuperseded
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes16.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes16.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes14.3M ₳Rationale
Management policies should be updated regularly to suit actual requirements.
- Yes14.2M ₳No rationale
- No14.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes13.9M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on governance action 8c653ee5c9800e6d31e79b5a7f7d4400c81d44717ad4db633dc18d4c07e4a4fd00, which establishes an initial Cardano Constitution.
I believe the constitution has material faults that should be addressed in a future revision, but none of these are in violation of my values, and recognize the reality that we could iterate on this forever and never reach consensus. I believe that forward progress with something that is mostly good will foster a rich culture of iterating on and revising and updating the constitution, a culture that has been absent in other contexts and lead to an ossification of values.
You can find a larger writeup of my beliefs and values here.
- Yes13.3M ₳Rationale
As a Delegated Representative (DRep), I have carefully reviewed the Delegate-Endorsed Cardano Constitution, its development process and its implications for governance. After considerable reflection, I am voting in favour of adopting this framework to replace the Interim Constitution. While I support this important step forward, I recognise that governance must remain dynamic and like any constitution, this document will require refinement as the ecosystem matures.
The ratification of this governance model marks progress over the Interim Constitution, which was never put to a community-wide vote. This version has emerged through a more open and participatory process, shaped by global workshops and broad community engagement, of which I attended myself in person as well. The introduction of a three-body governance system—comprising DReps, Stake Pool Operators (SPOs) and the Constitutional Committee—establishes safeguards aimed at preserving decentralisation and accountability. Additionally, its approval would allow for future governance actions, including constitutional amendments, restructuring of the Constitutional Committee and motions of no confidence.
While this framework represents a significant advancement, certain areas require further attention to ensure its long-term effectiveness. A large portion of the voting stake remains unengaged, posing a risk to meaningful representation. Increasing education and outreach efforts will be key to strengthening participation. Additionally, clearer guidelines for the election and replacement of the Constitutional Committee are needed to prevent unintended concentration of authority. Treasury management also requires more structured safeguards to promote sustainable financial policies.
Despite these challenges, this Constitution provides a solid foundation upon which to build. Effective governance is an iterative process and this framework enables the community to refine and improve decision-making structures over time. The inclusion of amendment mechanisms ensures that governance remains adaptable and responsive to the evolving needs of the ecosystem. I remain optimistic that by adopting this Constitution would be a step toward a more decentralised and transparent governance model.
For these reasons, I am voting in favour of its adoption. While there is still work to be done, this marks an important milestone in Cardano’s governance journey. The responsibility now falls on all of us to engage, refine and uphold the core principles that originally drew us into the space and lead us to become the strongest community in the ecosystem!
- Yes12.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes12.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes11.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes9.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes8.8M ₳Rationale
私はこのCardano憲法に賛成票を投じます。完璧とは言えませんが、暫定憲法に比べて曖昧な部分が削減され、以前より明確になったと感じます。特に賛成する理由として、基本原則が追加され、より分かりやすくなった点が挙げられます。また、暫定憲法では明記されていなかったADAの総供給量について、明確な規定が設けられた点も評価できます。最後に、新しいガバナンス時代において、DRepとして最初のガバナンスアクションの投票に参加できることを嬉しく思います。\n\n第一条第一項 基本原則 第十条\n「金融の安定性は維持されなければならず、ADAの総供給量は450億（45,000,000,000,000,000 lovelace）を超えてはならない。」\n\n---\n\nI cast my vote in favor of this Cardano Constitution. While it may not be perfect, it is clearer than the provisional constitution, as much of the ambiguity has been removed. One of the main reasons for my support is the addition of fundamental principles, which make the document easier to understand. Additionally, I appreciate that the total supply of ADA is explicitly stated, something that was not clearly specified in the provisional constitution. Lastly, I am pleased to participate in the first governance action vote as a DRep in this new era of governance.\n\nArticle 1, Section 1, TENET 10\n"Financial stability shall be maintained and the total supply of ada shall not exceed 45,000,000,000 (45,000,000,000,000,000 lovelace)."
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes7.6M ₳Rationale
Gov.tools limits rationale to 500 characters! Proposed constitution - step towards further Cardano decentralization. Not perfect. Constitution continues to divest governance power from 3 founding entities and redistributes it to ADA holders.
Cardano was designed to evolve. The constitution can evolve. Document reflects the essential nature of the blockchain whose principles it codifies.
My YES vote is a vote of trust in the Cardano community and its ability to wisely use constitutional tools - Yes7.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes6M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted4.6M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes4.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.8M ₳Rationale
DRep Report: I Voted Yes on the Constitution
By Michael Rogero, Constitutional Delegate Representing the Taipei Cardano CommunityI voted “yes” on the Constitution after careful consideration. While I have concerns about elements I believe are missing or malformed, the value of maintaining momentum towards decentralization, the Constitution’s valid reflection of the will of the people, and the fact that this is a significant step along the original roadmap override those concerns. I believe both the Cardano ecosystem and the wider world will be better off with this Constitution passed—even if it has some warts—so I cast my vote in favor.
The Constitution Reflects the Community Will
Cardano has always been a coalition of the willing. It was founded by people who aiming to fix fundamental flaws in the traditional financial system and other early blockchains. Many of us arrived later, inspired by that vision and eager to improve upon the initial framework while helping the ecosystem grow.
Since I joined 2018, I’ve seen a community of builders choosing this ecosystem to build in, in spite of the fact that most of these people could have earned more on other chains or in other industries. They stayed because they wanted to push forward the vision originally laid out by Charles, which has since grown and evolved to reflect the dreams and ideals of a broader global community.
This “created by the willing” spirit also shaped the Constitution. While a small team of professionals wrote the initial draft, people from around the world added to it, rewrote it, and picked apart every sentence, sharing their opinions on how well it reflected the will of their own communities and lived experience. Because of limited time and the large, diverse group—many without formal legal drafting experience—some things didn’t get as much scrutiny as we might have hoped. This Constitution may be an imperfect outcome, but still a big step forward toward the goal.
An alternative process would be something like the Cardano Foundation’s Constitution, which crafted by a smaller professional group in many ways is a cleaner document, but a centralized system isn’t what we set out to build. My hope is that the Community Constitution can be updated with better ideas in the future, but for this first step, starting with what the global community argued over, edited and ratified is the right choice.
The Constitution Reflects More Work Than Is Immediately Visible
My experience with the Constitution, beginning with the local 1694 workshop almost two years ago, going through DRep training, participating in the Constitutional Summits in Taipei and Nairobi, attending the Constitutional Convention in Buenos Aires, and joining many late-night sessions to finalize details like the definitions addendum—this process demanded countless hours of negotiation, argument, and refinement. Starting from that experience, I look around and see so many people who devoted many multiples of the time I did in order to get us here.
We shouldn’t overlook the extraordinary effort and coordination it took to form the initial drafts and get this document to its current form. This document represents a massive investment in human energy which shouldn’t be under valued, especially when it is likely more than sufficient structure for our ecosystem to function and evolve.
This Version Still Doesn’t Satisfy Me
I was elected as the representative from Taipei after promising that I’d push to add some clear moral standards in the document. Shortly before the Taipei Summit, there was an egregious incident in which multiple CNTs were minted using deep-fake nudes of various community members. While the action itself was obviously offensive and toxic, what bothered me more was that the Draft Constitution didn’t define any ethical codes which would address or even imply that such behavior was unconstitutional or even against community ethics.
The current text still doesn’t set out a moral standard similar to the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution. It does mention “our shared values” but then doesn’t specify what those are. I tried to include such principles in Nairobi and Buenos Aires but couldn’t convince a majority of the need. The fact that we don’t explicitly define lines that shouldn’t be crossed, or clarify an ethical code which unites us troubles me.
I Foresee Evolving This Document Will Be Hard
Getting this document across the finish line took significant will—and financial backing—from Charles, IOG and Intersect, who committed to completing this process even if some warts remained. As we heard repeatedly, done is better than endlessly striving for perfect. Getting to this point was essentially a case of herding a global community of cats that were engaged in endless debates. Post ratification, to improve on this work we will be facing a global ecosystem often communicating by tweets, Discord chats, and other impersonal asynchronous communication tools that work against fostering consensus or thoughtful debate. This is on top of the language, and culture barriers inherent in a global ecosystem. Democracy is messy, and decentralized democracy is exponentially hard.
I suspect that updating the Constitution will be tougher than many delegates assume. The approval threshold for amendments is high, and consensus will be tough to reach. Without Charles’s persistent will, and wallet, I’m not sure we’d have gotten here in the first place. I’m skeptical the community will find the drive and effort needed to keep this a truly “living document,” as stated in Section One.
Still, I believe this Constitution is solid enough that a democratic, decentralized financial ecosystem can grow under its framework. If it lets Cardano flourish, then despite any flaws, it deserves to pass. Passing it provides a framework to build upon and a starting point if we absolutely need to correct course.
Conclusion
While there are parts of the Constitution I wish were stronger, ratifying it now best serves Cardano’s future. It maintains momentum towards the goal, fairly reflects the will and voice of our diverse global community, and aligns with our decentralized and democratic principles. If we are serious about improving and clarifying it later, we have the foundation on which to build. For now, warts and all, it is sufficient and I voted “yes.”
- Yes3.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.1M ₳Rationale
The current version of the Cardano Constitution is the result of efforts of a large number of Cardano community members, and is the best constitution we will get for now.
There is plenty of room for improvement, and while I may disagree with some aspects of the Cardano Constitution, it is time to move forward with what we currently have.
We will have plenty of opportunities to make improvements to the constitution in the future, and here are some areas I think merit serious attention going forward:
The overall lack of on chain enforceability of the constitution. We have already seen in the past that social pressure is not enough, such as with the centralization of Stake Pools, leaving us with ~20% of operators controlling ~80% of all stake.
The lack of choice for governance models other than 1 lovelace = 1 vote from the beginning. DIDs and quadratic voting would put us in a much better governance model that does not lead to centralized oligarchy or plutocracy, and we are sadly in this situation right from the start of governance, which was predetermined for CIP 1694.
It would be smart to encourage ADA holders financially to participate in governance. Using a carrot method instead of the current stick method (can't withdraw rewards until delegating) would get better results. Having a portion of treasury rewards allocated to ADA holders who actually delegate to a DRep vs Auto Abstain, and encourage decentralization by having overall better rewards if the DRep is not in the very top rankings by stake delegated. This would encourage more active participation and movement of delegated voting power.
Article 1, Section 1, TENET 9 and Article 2, Section 2 are already in violation by deliberately making it financially difficult to participate in governance.
DRep and Direct Voter registration fees should be lowered significantly so that meaningful participation can happen. Finances alone are not an adequate determining factor for leadership or governance capabilities of a person, especially when Cardano is global and many cannot afford a 500 ADA deposit but could offer meaningful governance contributions.
The same goes for the govDeposit amount for submitting governance actions - 100,000 ADA is set deliberately high with the reasoning that it will limit spam. DReps and ADA holders were told that we would have ADA pooling tools available to mitigate this very high barrier to entry in order for meaningful participation to still happen - we did not get these tools, and still don't have them. We cannot have a deliberately high financial barrier to governance participation if we want true decentralized governance like what is preached. So either we need govDeposit to be lowered to ~5000 ADA, or we need the tooling that was promised to be present on gov.tools
- Article 3, Section 5 has been violated by gov.tools already, so we need at least 1 alternative interface platform to gov.tools with similar functionality to ensure there is a second valid and useful option.
Whenever I experienced technical issues with gov.tools, I filled out their support form and also contacted their support email. I received no response back on multiple occasions, but the issues were eventually quietly fixed. My governance dashboard is still broken and doesn't display my previous voting history. I expect a real tech support team for any governance dashboard for Cardano - one that can be effectively contacted and replies to emails.
There is also currently no way for a competing Cardano Constitution to be submitted in time on gov.tools, as this function will not be able to be enabled in time for whatever reason. A deliberate choice that was made which leaves no possibility of alternative constitution choice. I doubt we could have a better submission in time, but I expect transparency and undue influence / manipulation to be followed if it is supposed to be enshrined in this constitution.
- Yes3M ₳No rationale
- Yes3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳Rationale
As a delegate, and participant in the definitions process, I am very pleased with the current state of the constitution. It is not perfect, but it is not impeding or harming the chain in it's current state. With continued workstreams planned, and people starting to pay attention to governance, i think we are ready to take this step and move towards a fully ratified on -chain constitution.
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale