Constitutional Committee Compensation Epochs 581-653
174 DReps voted · 75 with a rationale · 10 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No65.7K ₳Rationale
There is no reason to give compensation to Constitutional Committee members alone. These are only a fraction of the actors participating to the Cardano governance. DReps and voters are also participant. A proposal that would encompass all of participant should be considered instead.
- No58.6K ₳No rationale
- No55.9K ₳Rationale
nope. i agree to where they come from, compensation for cc and drep roles is a topic to be had at large, but 1m is just outrageous and in extension: any large enough amount is a terrible idea for stable continuity.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Im not categorically against compensating CC members, but the amount is so outrageously high that it warps incentives for future CC candidates.
Honestly? Id even consider 10k per CC seat (yes. thats 70k total, not per individual CC member) a lot.Compensation also massively disincentivises CC consortiums as it would benefit individuals the most. In which case, we would literally need to rely on the individual opinions and moodswings of just 7 people.
I think a reasonable amount would be between 1000 and 5000 ada per year per seat. Thats low enough to not be a reason to apply and high enough to cover material costs, and/or a group dinner - considerable as "thanks" from the community.
Looked at from a different angle:
The whole blockchain currently earns about 3.6m ada every year in fees.
If 1m or 27% of the total revenue of the chain would be the cost to securing constitutionality in a programmable environment, then the trifecta governance model should be deemed at a failure.aa
- NoRevoted49.6K ₳Rationale
I find no value in the current form of this proposal to only compensate one third of the governance triumvirate. The importance of the seated CC members / councils duties are recognized ; however no one voting sector should receive compensation until all sectors are agreed upon, considered and compensated. Further discussion and parameters may need consideration. I do believe in SPO, dRep, and CC compensations , but a detailed and fair package must be discussed with recorded metrics to follow to ensure fair payment and earning from treasury funds. Please raise this proposal again in future. Many of the community have willingly worked for free and do deserve a compensation package if not as a monetary yield then an access or special dispensation offering within the Blockchain and partnerchains. IE: Treasury investments in such Real world Yield bearing Chains, NODES, Infrastructure, and DePins, as in Midnight Network, World Mobile, IAGON, On chain DEXs or Palmyra and offer free services including but not limited to a quarterly / yearly percentage or all of the operating yield minus operating expenditures to the Voting active recorded members. An Active community investment in other communities, projects, or partnerchains to facilitate the compensations.
LourdeOuroborus Imperator AeternalisEarlier votes
No8mo agoSuperseded
I find no value in the current form of this proposal to only compensate one third of the governance triumvirate. The importance of the seated CC members / councils duties are recognized ; however no one voting sector should receive compensation until all sectors are agreed upon, considered and compensated. Further discussion and parameters may need consideration. I do believe in SPO, dRep, and CC compensations , but a detailed and fair package must be discussed with recorded metrics to follow to ensure fair payment and earning from treasury funds. Please raise this proposal again in future. Many of the community have willingly worked for free and do deserve a compensation package if not as a monetary yield then an access or special dispensation offering within the Blockchain and partnerchains. IE: Treasury investments in such Real world Yield bearing Chains, NODES, Infrastructure, and DePins, as in Midnight Network, World Mobile or Palmyra and offer free services including but not limited to a percentage or all of the operating yield to the Voting active recorded members. An Active community investment in other communities or partnerchains to facilitate the compensations.
LourdeOuroborus Imperator AeternalisNo8mo agoSuperseded
I find no value in the current form of this proposal to only compensate one third of the governance triumvirate. The importance of the seated CC members / councils duties are recognized ; however no one voting sector should receive compensation until all sectors are agreed upon, considered and compensated. Further discussion and parameters may need consideration. I do believe in SPO, dRep, and CC compensations , but a detailed and fair package must be discussed with recorded metrics to follow to ensure fair payment and earning from treasury funds. Please raise this proposal again in future. Many of the community have willingly worked for free and do deserve a compensation package if not as a monetary yield then an access or special dispensation offering within the Blockchain and partnerchains. IE: Treasury investments in such Real world Yield bearing Chains, NODES, Infrastructure, and DePins, as in Midnight Network, World Mobile or Palmyra and offer free services including but not limited to a percentage or all of the operating yield to the Voting active recorded members. An Active community investment in other communities or partnerchains to facilitate the compensations.
- No48.6K ₳Rationale
I'm voting No.
There are no public reports on the actual workload and working hours of CC members.
Payments should be proportional to contribution and transparently justified.My ideas:
Reduce compensation to ₳30,000–₳60,000 per member per year.
Introduce CC activity metrics — number of proposals reviewed, time spent participating in discussions, actual reports.
Maintain the principle of rewarding contribution, but with a reasonable balance and strict auditing of payments. - No46.5K ₳Rationale
no, this vote is not transparent from the begining and only the CC voted yes for this, which is self-interest conflict
It should be together with CC term and transparent when voting at the beginning with clear kPI and responsibility
- No45.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes29.3K ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted26.7K ₳Rationale
Constitution only guarantees administratice costs to be covered. The volume of work is too little for financial compensation. Furthermore, at this time, the CC should be a volunteer position.
Earlier votes
No9mo agoSuperseded
The constitution only guarantees administrative costs. It does not guarantee compensation. I vote no.
- Abstain15.2K ₳No rationale
- No10.6K ₳Rationale
I do not like this proposal, so I vote no.
- No8.1K ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted6.7K ₳History
Earlier votes
No9mo agoSuperseded
- Yes4.4K ₳No rationale
- No1.7K ₳No rationale
- No1.2K ₳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!
- No684.4 ₳No rationale
- Yes682 ₳No rationale
- No329.6 ₳No rationale
- No123.6 ₳No rationale
- Yes10.2 ₳No rationale
- No0 ₳No rationale
- Abstain0 ₳No rationale
- No0 ₳No rationale