Constitutional Committee Compensation Epochs 581-653
174 DReps voted · 75 with a rationale · 10 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes7.6M ₳Rationale
Clock ticking. Not waiting 5-6 epochs to cast my vote.
Preface to rationale: DRep compensation is a different ball game. DRep compensation would likely introduce a layer of new problems in minimum viable governance at this stage - through a proliferation of DRep-to earn players.
Not so for the Constitutional Committee (CC). The CC should serve an independent and formidable barrier to governance capture. Especially when it comes to pressure from the big Cardano players, current or future.
I set a personal DRep limit to approve up to ₳200-250M of spending in 1st year of minimum viable governance. I committed to vote YES to open source @cardano_govtool as my last YES vote this year (apart from emergencies).
Governance integrity in a period of minimum viable governance is a barrier to capture. The CC should be able to vote on the constitutionality of all motions - while dedicating sufficent time and effort to the process. Empowering a community elected, independent CC to protect Cardano from governance capture falls under emergency motions in my view, as the governance system is untested.
Conflicts of interest: I am not affiliated with the future CC members, apart from a staking relationship as an ADA holder. My SPO (TECH) is member of the Tingvard CC member. I have never met any of the CC members. TECH pool refunded part of the pool revenues to stakers in earlier epochs - and I benefited from that as one of the pool's many stakers. - Yes5.9M ₳Rationale
I am trying to quantify/qualify the 1M ADA (or 500ADA/day per CC) and I'm not there with this proposal, however I will be voting YES to signal being in favor of compensation CC members overall. What I wish to see is some other mechanism/proof of work(?) tied to compensation to qualify for payment. In such a way that CC members would be eligible 'up to' 200K ADA, but they do not all equally earn it. In my mind, just trying to balance CC members that put in X hours vs others that put in Y hours. I hate to ask of more from CC members, but I really do feel that it should be something in place. The 1M ADA is arbitrary to me at this point, and I do wish to see it tied an actual USD amount - and basing payouts on a flat number so that ADA being withdrawn for payment can go up or down depending on the cost but we all agree what that's going to be in USD. This presents challenges in what that ought to be but again, to me that's important.
- No5.8M ₳No rationale
- No5.4M ₳Rationale
It's too soon to estimate the good amount of compensation in the governance of cardano (or if its needed at all)
- Yes5.3M ₳No rationale
- No5.3M ₳Rationale
STORM Partners is voting NO on the CC Compensation proposal. We recognize the importance of fairly compensating governance contributors, including CC members, and agree that sustainability requires moving beyond purely voluntary participation. However, this proposal lacks the necessary transparency, consultation, and strategic framing expected of a treasury withdrawal of this scale. There was no prior public debate with DReps or the community, and the ₳1,000,000 allocation, while not excessive, was defined without clear benchmarking, scope definition, or performance expectations.
Our position is not against compensation but against premature institutionalization. Governance funding should evolve through an open, data-driven process that defines how all bodies - CC, DReps, and others - are compensated within a lean and sustainable governance system. As emerging AI-assisted constitutional analysis workflows demonstrate, efficiency and automation can reduce manual overhead and cost over time.
We therefore oppose this proposal in its current form while encouraging a revised, community-endorsed compensation framework that balances fairness, accountability, and long-term fiscal responsibility.
- Yes4.7M ₳No rationale
- No4.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain4.6M ₳No rationale
- No4.4M ₳Rationale
While I appreciate the time and effort required to serve as a CC member, the proposed 200,000 ADA compensation for five members/entities, with no allocation for the other two individuals, is excessive. I would support a maximum of 20,000 ADA per year per entity, contingent on unanimous agreement among all CC members. I believe Phil and KtorZ should have the option to donate their share to charity if they choose, but their agreement on this matter is essential, as it sets a precedent for future compensation discussions, such as those involving DReps.
- No4.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos pela "ABSTENÇÃO" nesta ação de governança (gov_action16f69yf2f35w9ds8sr05ewyr55jg5f439mu8882rv295fvf8m4kcqql7y6nc), pois acreditamos que a compensação financeira para os DReps também deveria ser discutida conjuntamente com a do Comitê Constitucional. É importante deixar claro que não somos contra a compensação — apenas entendemos que o debate deve ocorrer de forma integrada, garantindo coerência entre os diferentes papéis da governança. Discordamos dos argumentos contrários que afirmam que o Comitê possui um número fixo de membros, pois é possível limitar a compensação dos DReps aos que detêm maior delegação, conforme refletido nos diversos workshops realizados no período pré-constitucional ao redor do mundo — inclusive um promovido por nós para o público brasileiro. Sugerimos a re-submissão desta ação de governança, contemplando também a opção de compensação dos DReps em um formato que obtenha maior consenso da comunidade.
[English]
We chose "ABSTENTION" on this governance action (gov_action16f69yf2f35w9ds8sr05ewyr55jg5f439mu8882rv295fvf8m4kcqql7y6nc), because we believe that financial compensation for DReps should also be discussed together with that of the Constitutional Committee. It is important to emphasize that we are not against compensation — we simply believe the discussion should take place in an integrated manner, ensuring coherence among the different governance roles. We disagree with the opposing argument that the Committee has a fixed number of members, since it is possible to limit DRep compensation to those with greater delegation power, as reflected in the various workshops held during the pre-constitutional period worldwide — including one we organized for the Brazilian community. We suggest resubmitting this governance action to also include the option of DRep compensation in a model that achieves broader community consensus. - No3.8M ₳Rationale
This is too much capital, decided in an arbitrary way and without structure.
We protect the treasury.Strength and honor.
- NoChanged3.1M ₳Rationale
While I believe the Constitutional Committee should receive compensation out of all the Cardano representatives, the ADA ask is too much, so I must vote no.
The CC should have socialized this proposal before putting it on chain if they wanted to get it passed on the first go.
We as a community need to have the discussion of compensation for CC members and DReps, so perhaps this is how we now start.
Feedback:
There needs to be rationale and calculations provided about how the amount requested of 200,000 ADA per CC seat was reached.
As far as I can tell, there are 23 individuals seeking compensation (hard to find out if there is one or more member of Tingvard). We can either assign payment based on seat or on individual participants.
In my opinion, I would expect no more than 2,000 ADA per month per person of compensation for the CC committee, so that works out to 24,000 ADA per person per year, and a total of 552,000 ADA (about half of what is being requested).
The main benefits of having a council of members per CC seat as opposed to a single member should be: efficiency in reaching a decision faster, splitting the workload, enabling a more democratic process.
Having a council of members per CC seat should not increase costs to ADA holders dramatically as opposed to having a single person hold a seat, and compensation needs to reflect this.
We also need to set an example to the community that getting a CC seat does not mean we are granting someone a golden goose. To prevent this from happening and to reinforce that splitting a CC seat should result in efficiency, not an overall increase in cost, I recommend that each individual CC seat be compensated no more than 50,000 ADA per year. This would set us at a reasonable 350,000 ADA for all 7 seats and incur a fair annual cost to the treasury and ADA holders.
Earlier votes
Abstain8mo agoSuperseded
As I have not yet had time to review this proposal, I have submitted a vote of Abstain for now.
- No3M ₳No rationale
- No2.8M ₳No rationale
- No2.8M ₳Rationale
I agree that CC members should be compensated. That said, this proposal is lacking critical budgetary details that would allow me to make an informed decision.
- No2.7M ₳Rationale
CC duties are relatively simple compared to DReps. They primarily have to determine if an action complies with a concrete document, the Cardano Constitution. DReps, in comparison, have to deal with budget allotment, value determination and other strategic decisions.
I have doubts as to whether or not DReps should be compensated, and if DReps are non-compensated I certainly feel the CC members should be.
- Yes2.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
隗より始めよ。
改革はまず、自らが模範を示すところから始まる――この提案はまさにその実践です。
憲法委員会は、Cardanoの最高意思決定の合憲性を担保し、
トレジャリーの運用や憲法改正など、数百億円規模の公共資産の正当性を審査する機関です。
これは企業にたとえれば、監査委員会と取締役会の中枢を兼ねるレベルの責任に相当します。年間₳200,000（約2,000万円）は、一見大きく見えても、
同等の重責を担う企業役員やガバナンス専門職の報酬と比べれば決して過大ではなく、むしろ控えめです。
Cardanoが本気で「公共インフラとしてのブロックチェーン」を築くなら、
その中核を担う人材には相応の敬意と報酬が必要です。憲法委員会が自ら透明な設計を提示したことを高く評価し、
公正で持続可能なガバナンスの礎として、この提案に賛成します。—
Lead by example.
True reform begins when those in charge set the standard themselves — and this proposal does exactly that.
The Constitutional Committee holds immense responsibility, ensuring the legality of governance actions and safeguarding billions in public treasury funds.
In corporate terms, this role is comparable to a board director and audit chair combined.An annual cap of 200,000 ADA (around $130,000–$150,000) is fair and even modest compared to executives in major institutions with similar levels of accountability.
Transparent and reasonable compensation is essential to attract capable, independent members and to sustain Cardano’s governance over time.By defining its own compensation publicly and on-chain, the Committee sets a precedent for fairness and integrity.
I support this proposal as a practical and symbolic step toward a mature, sustainable Cardano governance system. - Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged2.5M ₳Rationale
Uneducated rationale: This is an absurd amount of money for this.
My new rationale: 1 Million for (7*5) 35 people, 200k per consortium, is reasonable for a critical role in our governance process.
I think many dreps mis-understood this proposals, phil is not taking 200k.
We dont want to cripple our governance in the NCL budgeting time. Sure we can find ways of providing more tooling to this roleEarlier votes
No9mo agoSuperseded
This is an absurd amount of money for this.
- Abstain2.3M ₳Rationale
I totally agree with paying them but I haven't seen them do much for their role, would need them to be more active on multiple community channels, educating the community, calling for votes or organizing workshops....
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- No2.1M ₳No rationale
- No2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- No2M ₳No rationale
- No1.9M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.8M ₳Rationale
Voting: Abstain
I support compensating CC members. The role demands time, constitutional familiarity, and ongoing engagement, and compensation helps ensure participation isn’t limited to well-resourced groups or individuals. Funding the CC from a neutral source aligns with the constitution and supports institutional independence.
However, the request doesn’t provide enough detail to assess whether 200,000 ada per member is proportionate to the work involved. It’s unclear how many individuals within each group will receive compensation, whether any group members are opting out, or how responsibilities are shared. Without this information, it’s difficult to judge whether the proposed amount fairly reflects the effort required.
Based on publicly available information, the estimated number of individuals in each requesting group is:
- Cardano Atlantic Council: 6
- Tingvard: 6
- Eastern Cardano Council: 7
- Ace Alliance: 5
- Cardano Japan Council: 5
If all individuals are requesting compensation, the per-person amount would fall roughly between 28,500 and 40,000 ada, but this is still an assumption. A clear breakdown of (1) who is being compensated, (2) how the internal allocation works, and (3) the expected time commitments per individual would allow DReps to assess the fairness of the request with more confidence.
Future requests would also benefit from a transparent compensation framework that accounts for both multi-individual groups and single-individual members. Even though no solo members are seeking compensation this round, establishing this now would be useful. A base amount per CC member plus an additional amount per individual contributor would better align compensation with workload and avoid disadvantaging single-member seats.
Given the lack of clarity and the difficulty of verifying whether the budget is appropriate, I am voting Abstain. The proposal is directionally sound, but it needs clearer justification and a transparent compensation structure before it can be properly evaluated.
- No1.8M ₳Rationale
I'm voting NO on this CC compensation proposal despite supporting compensation in principle. The inconsistency of some members accepting funds while others decline creates an inequitable and confusing precedent. Either all CC members should receive compensation for their governance work, or none should—this mixed approach undermines the fairness principle and makes it unclear whether CC service is voluntary or compensated labor. We should pass a compensation framework where all members are treated equally, even if individuals choose to donate their compensation back to the treasury.
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳Rationale
While I'm in favor of CC compensation, the amount asked (200k ada per CC member for 1 year) is just too much, imho, especially without any cost breakdown whatsoever included in the proposal. I acknowledge most CC members are groups consisting of multiple individual members, but this should not be at the cost of the treasury, imho. Those groups are free to have multiple members, but this is at their own discretion.
Because this is the first time CC members will be compensated, we should be more conservative, and I'll approve a budget of up to 100k ada per CC member for 1 year. For the next year, we could revisit that amount if necessary (if members show their actual cost breakdown).
If this budget gets approved, I might reconsider my decision for the actual treasury withdrawal, but only if it contains a more detailed cost breakdown. - Yes1.5M ₳No rationale
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.3M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
I believe in equitable and open compensation for key governance roles. However, this submission is premature, overbroad, and procedurally weak. It asks for 1,000,000 ADA without sufficient justification, without parity to comparable roles (notably DReps and SPOs), and without an enforceable accountability framework that satisfies basic Treasury stewardship standards.
The proposal offers no benchmarking: no hourly estimates, no comparable compensation models (DRep stipends, SPO reimbursements, external committee rates), no CPI or FX sensitivity, and no breakdown of how 200k per member maps to time, effort, or deliverables. A blunt “up to 200,000 ADA” figure per person is not a defensible ask for a public treasury.
Approving this as-is risks precedent-setting spend, inequitable treatment of other contributors, and ambiguous governance accountability. **Cardano governance needs to guard against small-group exploitation and eliminate the risk of inadvertently forming an elite paid class. **Compensation is legitimate, but must be tied to transparency, parity, and accountability for CCs, DReps, and SPOs alike.
„The pigs did not actually work, but directed and supervised the others. With their superior knowledge, it was natural that they should assume leadership.“
George Orwell, Animal Farm - Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Yes971.5K ₳No rationale