Constitutional Committee Compensation Epochs 581-653
174 DReps voted · 75 with a rationale · 10 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No931.8K ₳No rationale
- No861.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes825.2K ₳Rationale
Compensation for the constitutional committee is absolutely necesssary. We do not think by any means this is the best compensation framework or way to do it but it is far better than conituing to expect that this highly demanding role be filled without compensation. That would a precedent that is unacceptable and dangerous for Cardano's governance quality and security.
The amounts proposed seem reasonable, in future iterations a framework linking the remuneration to the delivery of high quality work would be preferable. - No820.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes798.6K ₳Rationale
We should compensate governance as long as we can govern compensation.
- Abstain798.4K ₳Rationale
I'm open to compensating the CC, but would prefer a smaller amount for the first year
- No794.5K ₳Rationale
I'm not against compensation, but I think the discussion needs to evolve in a more comprehensive fashion. This just feels like a blind shot across the bow. Just how much time should the role require? How much is the community willing to compensate for that time? What about the time/effort put in by DReps? How can we strengthen the relationship between inputs (time, effort, documented output) and outputs (compensation)? I'm not ready to approve this proposal as a stop-gap measure to keep CAC in place. We'll survive without them while the conversation evolves.
- No759K ₳No rationale
- No756.5K ₳No rationale
- No731.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain717.5K ₳Rationale
I vote for abstain due to conflict of interest, as I am part of Eastern Cardano Council.
- No705.1K ₳Rationale
The compensation is crucial because, unlike other roles within Cardano, CC members lack a neutral funding source to cover their significant administrative duties, which include reviewing governance actions, conducting research, and attending meetings. Providing this funding ensures the CC remains independent, accessible to a diverse range of qualified contributors, and prevents potential biases that could arise if members had to self-subsidize their participation or rely on external institutions. Still, I think the number here is too large, and I don't want this to turn into the United States where public service is a for profit job that only the most corrupt take in order to make large sums of money by whatever means necessary. These CC members should want to work for free as Ada succeeding already pays them. Their payment is when we 10x. This way, they are greatly rewarded for investing with US!
- No705.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes625.9K ₳Rationale
I'm voting yes because the Constitutional Committee is the institutional backbone preventing governance collapse and treasury capture. Without a functioning CC, there's no constitutional enforcement, no treasury execution, and no governance. The system is paralyzed or devolves into a SPO directed hard fork. Expecting this work to continue unpaid isn't principled frugality, it's negligence that guarantees a select few, only the wealthy, self-serving, or corrupt serve.
CC members carry real workload and legal liability. We should expect professionalism and accountability that protects the entire ecosystem from malicious actors and governance capture. The alternative to compensation is to compromise independence, invite corruption and risk stagnation.
This budget requests 1,000,000 ADA to compensate five of seven serving CC members for epochs 581-653. That's 200,000 ADA per seat, covering roughly 25 people total across multi-member councils. At current prices, this works out to under $20,000 USD per person annually far below market rate for equivalent legal and governance oversight in any comparable ecosystem. Two members (KtorZ and Phil_uplc) are declining compensation entirely, demonstrating this isn't a cash grab.
The Cardano Constitution explicitly mandates this in Article VII, Section 8: "Cardano Blockchain ecosystem budgets shall provide for periodic administrative costs of the Constitutional Committee." This isn't discretionary, it's constitutional obligation. Administration runs through Intersect's audited smart contract framework with transparent milestone tracking and community oversight. Refusing to fund the CC while demanding they protect treasury integrity and constitutional compliance is hypocrisy. You can't expect professional performance from volunteer labor under legal liability. - No605.7K ₳Rationale
📢 Vote: Constitutional Committee Compensation Epochs 581–653
As a DRep, I vote — NO.
⚖️ My Reasoning
The proposed budget of ₳1,000,000 ADA (₳200,000 per CC member) is disproportionate to the actual scope of their work.
The Constitutional Committee performs a supervisory and legal function — verifying governance actions for compliance with the Constitution.
This is not development or product creation; it’s administrative work that doesn’t require full-time commitment or large team resources.
💬 Why I Vote NO
- ₳200,000 per member is 3–6× higher than typical DAO compensation (₳30–60k per year).
- There are no public reports showing real workload or hours of CC activity.
- Rewards should be proportional to contribution and transparently justified.
- Such excessive spending weakens the sustainability and trust of the Cardano Treasury.
💡 My Proposal
- Reduce compensation to ₳30,000–₳60,000 per member per year.
- Introduce a measurable CC activity metric — number of reviewed proposals, meeting participation, and published reports.
- Preserve fair reward principles but maintain balance, transparency, and strict auditing.
🗳 I vote “NO” on the Constitutional Committee Compensation Epochs 581–653 proposal.
💬 My DRep ID: ➡️ drep1y269ehxj30k4vfzfc2z84v0xykd3amuy2xn0kv9zf8rhcec2fg2jrI’m registered as a DRep and ready to help shape the future of the Cardano ecosystem.
Optimistic about building the world’s largest decentralized community. 🖤
More details here: https://t.me/PROCENT666/338 - No590.5K ₳No rationale
- No589.7K ₳Rationale
The proposed amount seems too high. A lower price would be reasonable.
- Yes587.6K ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on this proposal, as I fully agree with the requested amount and the overall approach to providing fair remuneration to the Constitution Committee (CC) members. Recognizing and compensating their time, responsibility, and contribution to Cardano’s governance structure is crucial for maintaining accountability and sustaining long-term participation.
However, I do have an open question that I’d like the community and my delegators to reflect on: the current structure excludes individual CC members—such as KtorZ and Phil_UPLC—from receiving payment simply because they serve independently rather than as part of a group. This could unintentionally discourage future candidates from running solo, incentivizing people to form artificial groups or organizational entities just to qualify for funding.
While I understand that multi-member or script-based CCs may spend more time coordinating and reaching consensus, both individual and collective CCs fulfill the same constitutional responsibilities. The mechanism for balancing these payments between individuals and groups deserves deeper discussion within the community to ensure fairness and maintain motivation for all future CC candidates.
- No535.2K ₳Rationale
I am against the authority or the CC, attracting people that would like to exploit the system with rewards is a step in the wrong direction. We should be doing anything and everything in our power to deprecate the need for a CC.
- No533.9K ₳Rationale
Happy to represent for free for the time being maybe in the future when more revenue streams start to come in we can reward the time for the Dreps who spent hours working out Cardano Governance
- Yes501K ₳Rationale
The Constitutional Committee (CC) is not a ceremonial body. It is the core institutional safeguard of Cardano’s on-chain governance. It interprets the constitution, validates the legality and process of governance actions, arbitrates disputes, and ensures that treasury funds are released and managed according to the rules that protect the network. Without a functioning CC, there is no constitutional enforcement, no treasury execution, and no credible governance framework. The system collapses into paralysis or chaos.
At present, CC members carry real workload and legal liability. They review governance actions, verify compliance, hold and sign multisig transactions, engage in arbitration, and interface with the ecosystem during critical decision phases. These are not symbolic duties, they require time, coordination, specialized knowledge, and professional accountability. Expecting this work to be performed indefinitely on a volunteer basis is not sustainable, not fair, and not responsible. It disrespects the people doing the work and endangers the entire governance process.
This proposal seeks to fund the Constitutional Committee to ensure its members are compensated fairly for the time, expertise, and risk involved in performing this role. The requested amount represents a modest allocation, far below market rate for equivalent legal and governance oversight in any comparable ecosystem. The budget also covers administrative costs: legal setup, taxation, organizational structuring, and compliance reporting, which are unavoidable for a legally recognized governance body.
Funding the CC is not a “nice to have.” It is the cost of having a legitimate, operational governance system. If the network wants treasury withdrawals, parameter changes, and constitutional processes to function properly, then the people ensuring those mechanisms are constitutional and secure must be funded. Anything else is institutional negligence. - Yes479.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes466.2K ₳Rationale
support fair CC compensation to ensure unbiased and professional governance.
- Abstain409.7K ₳No rationale
- No383K ₳No rationale
- No381.1K ₳No rationale
- No378.8K ₳No rationale
- No365.7K ₳No rationale
- No353.1K ₳No rationale
- No320.4K ₳Rationale
0 to 200k in a blink. You might argue that many seats comprise several members and so 200k might be okish per head, however most of the overhead in voting/meetings/etc arise from their choice of forming the Constitutional Head that way
- NoChanged300.6K ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain9mo agoSuperseded
- Yes298.9K ₳Rationale
The constitutional committee plays an important role in the governance of Cardano. To ensure that we can continue to rely on their contributions, it is appropriate to compensate the committee for their efforts. I find the amount proposed to be quite reasonable.
- No270.1K ₳Rationale
While I respect the Constitutional Committee’s contributions and agree that professionalizing key governance roles may eventually support Cardano’s growth and integrity, I fundamentally cannot support this proposal for the following reasons:
Absence of a Community-Endorsed Compensation Framework: Compensation for governance actors should emerge from a broad, transparent, and peer-reviewed process covering all relevant bodies (CC, DReps, SPOs), not be defined by unilateral proposals by beneficiaries.
Excessive and Unjustified Amounts: The ask—200,000 ADA per member for non-executive, part-time oversight work, absent clear costing or workload—is excessive by sector standards and unaccompanied by supporting documentation, deliverables, or operational logs.
Governance Equity and Precedent Risks: Selective funding of the CC would unbalance the governance ecosystem, introducing perceptions of privilege and setting a problematic precedent for future administrative funding.
Transparency and Accountability: The lack of public discussion, clear workload transparency, and consensus-building demonstrates a failure of process.
Until Cardano establishes a unifying compensation policy through a full community-led framework, I cannot support isolated and unjustified treasury outlays of this magnitude for any governance role, including the Constitutional Committee.
- Abstain260.2K ₳Rationale
I support the idea of compensating Constitutional Committee (CC) members as an important step toward sustainable and fair governance in Cardano. The CC’s work requires time, expertise, and independence, and establishing a transparent, smart contract–based compensation mechanism aligns well with the Constitution.
However, the requested budget of 1,000,000 ADA — up to 200,000 ADA per member — seems relatively high for an initial funding round. At this stage, a phased or partial approach might be more appropriate, allowing the community to evaluate the model’s effectiveness before scaling further.
Therefore, I generally support the concept but abstain from endorsing this specific budget to encourage more detailed justification of the compensation level and ensure a stronger balance between cost and outcome.
- Yes245.5K ₳No rationale
- No238.8K ₳Rationale
I vote NO. CC must prove value first. DReps serve unpaid — lead by example. At least not now. Lets reconsider next year.
- No233.2K ₳No rationale
- No228.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes200.5K ₳Rationale
I'm in favour of professional compensation for a professional job.
I have questions around the 'Dispute resolution' mechanism, whereby CC members may vote together to deny payment to 1 CC member. It seems fine while we're all friends and rowing in the same direction. But perhaps there should be another check/balance to prevent abuse of this particular power? - No199K ₳No rationale
- No191.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes150.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes138.4K ₳No rationale
- Abstain131.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes129.1K ₳No rationale
- No110.9K ₳No rationale
- No108.3K ₳Rationale
I am reluctantly voting against this proposal. I am very much in favor of compensation for the activities of the constitutional committees however the amount of compensation matters and needs to be better examined. This proposal does not explain what the community is paying for in essence. Why was the amount of 200,000 Ada chosen? Why would the amount not be dependent on the number of actions examined by the committees? At this stage in Cardano's development I don't see how this function could be considered full time employment so why a set rate? Perhaps a set rate per proposal examined and a max cap of 200,000 Ada would work. I believe more work is needed before I can vote in favor of this proposal.
- YesRevoted105.8K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes9mo agoSuperseded
- Yes103.1K ₳No rationale
- No65.7K ₳No rationale