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.
- Yes126.2K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted118.7K ₳Rationale
I’m voting YES on the Cardano Constitution because, while not perfect, it represents a significant step forward in decentralized governance and is good enough to move us past the Interim Constitution. Having participated in the 1694 workshops, hosted Constitutional Workshops, and actively engaged in governance discussions, I’ve seen firsthand the dedication of this community in shaping a governance framework that reflects our shared values.
I do have concerns—particularly with the section on ADA ownership, which moves away from the fundamental principle of ‘not your keys, not your crypto.’ However, governance is an ongoing process, and this document is designed to evolve. What gives me confidence is the strength of the Cardano community and the commitment we’ve shown to improving governance through open debate and collaboration. This Constitution is not the final destination, but it is the necessary next step. By ratifying it, we ensure that governance remains in the hands of ADA holders and that we can continue refining and strengthening our system over time. It’s time to move forward and build upon the work we’ve all contributed to.
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes115.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes112.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes110.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes110.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes109.5K ₳Rationale
I am honored to cast my inaugural vote on the Cardano constitution. My affirmative vote is grounded in the following considerations:
- Evolving Framework: I recognize that the constitution is a living document, open to future amendments as necessary.
- Commitment to Refinement: The governance workstreams planned for 2025 aim to enhance our governance processes and procedures, incorporating community feedback to guide potential amendments.
Furthermore, the final constitution satisfies all ratification criteria established in the Interim Constitution.
From this point onwards, we collectively hold the power to shape Cardano's future and its foundational principles. I eagerly anticipate engaging in thoughtful and reasonable discussions, embracing innovative ideas, and fostering a shared sense of involvement and ownership.
In my role as a Delegated Representative (DRep), I am committed to casting votes that prioritize Cardano's growth while steadfastly upholding our core values as enshrined in the constitution.
Sincerely,
Traiectum
- Yes108.3K ₳Rationale
This is a good and necessary first step to governance and provides what it sets out to provide; a foundational pillar for minimum viable governance. The journey to improve the governance will of course be an ongoing process but I am very much in favor of taking this step and thank all who collaborated to present this document to the community.
- Yes108.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes107.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes105.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes104.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes101.5K ₳Rationale
I vote in favor of the Cardano Constitution because it establishes a structured, decentralized governance system that empowers the community, ensuring transparency and long-term stability. The extensive consultation process and the principles embedded in CIP-1694 provide a solid foundation for decision-making that aligns with the core values of decentralization, representation, and fairness.
However, my support comes with reservations regarding areas that require further refinement, such as enhancing oversight of the Constitutional Committee, preventing power concentration among DReps, improving the efficiency of constitutional amendments, and ensuring full transparency in treasury allocations.
- Yes99.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes94.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes93.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes92.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes89.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes79.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes71.3K ₳Rationale
As a DRep I vote YES because:
Completion of Minimum Viable Governance (CIP-1694)
• CIP-1694 is a crucial step toward true decentralized governance, enabling all ADA holders to participate in decision-making.
• This proposal finalizes the transition from the Interim Constitution to an official governance framework.Transparent and Inclusive Development Process
• The Constitution was shaped through 63 global workshops with over 1,400 participants from the Cardano community.
• It was refined based on extensive community feedback and approved at the Constitutional Convention by a 95% majority.Meets All Requirements of the Interim Constitution
• Key criteria, such as holding global workshops, electing delegates, organizing the Constitutional Convention, and approving the final version, have all been met.Ensures Continued Governance Progress
• Once ratified, the Constitution enables the election of a new Constitutional Committee in September 2025.
• It also includes an amendment process, allowing future improvements based on community feedback.Establishes a Strong Foundation for Cardano’s Future
• A formal Constitution provides clear governance rules, shared values, and long-term guiding principles.
• It ensures security, stability, and transparency for the blockchain.
- Yes69.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes68.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes65.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes63.8K ₳No rationale
- No58.5K ₳Rationale
The Cardano Constitution should not be viewed as a best "effort," a final document or even a minimal viable product (MVP). It is a start to what many believe will provide a more "democratic" society within Cardano. A fair, just, balanced, equality driven ecosystem of the future for the people, by the people.
My views differ. The Constitution is an incomplete document. There is no definition set that is integrated into the Constitution. Instead, the definitions that were labored over for many hours, during many days, encompassing the thoughts of many people; they are merely suggestive, unenforceable words added separately.
Simple words like "community" has been shown to mean something altogether different than its common usage and certainly in context outside of block-chain norms. Other phrases including words such as unreasonable(y) are intentionally ambiguous; this may be so fees are not parameterized in an unknown future, or it could provide that leeway when applied towards enforcing actions against bad actors, or otherwise unconstitutional, immoral and even unethical actions. Presumable that ambiguity is to allow for translation discrepancies within an international community.
Amendment thresholds are too high. Again, this can be positive or negative. It truly depends on whose agenda it is, who submitted the proposal and which plutocrats are for or against. On the more negative side, the broader community does not have this capacity without the assistance of the founding entities or those entities and organizations located within Intersect MBO.
With the millions of dollars Intersect paid to host regional and international workshops, through the final signing of the Constitution, the participation rate was low, continues to be low and, to be honest, has always been low. Ratifying a Constitution for a block-chain community, if anything, should have spurred more participation. Low participation is a by-product of the misuse of the tools the founding entities have at their disposal. This was the case with Project Catalyst in 2021/2022. Communication and outreach is not a priority unless there is an agenda to push, persons to persuade and influencers to hype up. Throughout the entire process Intersect controlled many aspects; pushed, directed, funneled all talking points, agendas and goals for meetings through Constitutional delegates.
The governance platform has errors, doesn't match up or recognize other platform metadata and fails to build UTXOs appropriately. All leading to overspending in transactions, headaches, and more questions. The gov.tools road-map is lacking and with the current build lacks any form of visible voting history. Intersect is the overlord of Cardano, why would they rush a constitution and governance?
This constitution is not beneficial to the community. There is possible harm that can be caused by actions taken after a ratification. Harm to users, to ada holders, to developers, to those that make the ecosystem what it is; not the founders or MBOs who hope to gain more, or retain, power of this block-chain. This is a request to ratify a document that creates more questions than there are WILLING people to answer; at least not until the ratification.
Regardless if others agree with the above sentiment is moot. This vote takes into account the ENTIRE community, the silenced community, the ignored community; nothing in this document benefits the every-person. It continues the processes we are currently accustom to, adds a little bit of, possibly, transparency and continues extracting time, knowledge and life from all of those who participate. The difference; you are voting for it to continue.
This was not a document created by the sheer will of the broader community. It is a document that has been manipulated to a point of exhaustion. Debates no longer mattered. Discourse was fading. Concerns discounted. All because of biases brought into a community initiative and perverted to resemble one organizations agenda, desires, and goals. There are very few principles mentioned in the document. Those principles of governance being education, honesty, inclusivity, transparency, accountability, self-sovereignty, equality and decentralization; mostly missing.
A constitution with no principles does not belong in any community, collective, county, country or continent. It is with regret to those principled people whom participated in bringing this document to the community that I MUST VOTE NO.
- Yes55.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes55.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes53.8K ₳No rationale
- No53.5K ₳Rationale
I'm concerned about the 1 token 1 vote voting model.
It is not representative of the will of the Community or even representative of the involvement and interest of the individual in the success of Cardano.
It is a flawed model as it was shown in the last round of Project Catalyst, a model that makes it very exclusive for newcomers.
Would prefer a better model, that considers other things such as contribution to Cardano, time spent in Cardano, knowledge on a certain topic, or even the percentage of wealth Cardano represents in the overall wealth of the voter. An algorithm that takes different to make some kind of weight voting.
We need to explore better and fairer models, and the first governance system should already include such fairer models. It shouldn't be biased from the start, as we risk not being able to change it later on.
Additionally and considering this is the voting model we will use from now onwards, I'm extremely concerned about the real possibility, that when we find a better, fairer, and more representative business model, we won't be able to upgrade it as large whales and token holders will likely not be receptive to losing voting power and influence regarding the future of Cardano, especially considering that there are several billion dollars at stake.
From the Content of the Constitution, would like to see clearer boundaries and principles regarding the administration of funds from the budget.
While there are other minor concerns with this Constitution, especially within the lack of a clearer more straightforward mention relative to decentralization and peer review research, it is the flawed voting model that is the major concern.
- Yes53.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes52.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes51.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes49.6K ₳Rationale
Much thought process went behind this vote after many instances of listening to the various opinions of the community as well as the experts I have found that a balance must be met. The voting mechanisms built here are utilized to help further the blockchain with full concern about the community and the effects of said votes. As with many others within the ecosystem as a whole I have doubts and apprehensions about the Constitution and some of the excluded and unexplained portions that remain ambiguous.
Those that are seated currently as interim members of specialized positions are the bearers of the weight of community expectations primarily the budget.
I unabashedly covet what has been built and I find value in understanding that we as a community are now in a moment of experimentation, where the mechanisms built for governance must now be enacted and utilized by the community to make the changes in which so many have stated must be considered and enforced.
With reluctance and hesitation I have decided to vote "Yes "for the current constitutional draft ,my reasoning is that "WE" the community have the mechanisms set up to make the changes, it is now in our hands as a community to show not only each other but the entire world of blockchain that governance can be done "RIGHT" by the people for the people with the future communities in mind.... barring greed, grabs for power, grandstanding and political angst.
I have more confidence within the community than the words written within the Constitution itself. It is time for us to get the ball rolling and prove that we as a community can find balance for those awaiting their opportunity to join us.LOURDE
Ouroborus
Imperator
Aeternalis - Yes40.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes39.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes39.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes37.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes33.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes31.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes29.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes28.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes25.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes24.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes22.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes20.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes15.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes15.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes15.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes14.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes10.7K ₳No rationale