DRepTalk
Sign in
Enter as DRepEnter as delegatorEnter as SPOEnter as CC memberEnter as proposerRegister as DRep
Governance ActionsDiscussionsTreasuryDRepsAnalyticsReview
Sign in
More ways to sign in
Enter as delegatorEnter as SPOEnter as CC memberEnter as proposerRegister as DRep
Install app

Cardano Treasury DeFi Liquidity Budget

System1y ago1 post
DReps 153SPOs 8CC 7

5 of 7 committee members voted

  • Cardano Atlantic Council07e0eb70…5bde
    NoResigned · term ends epoch 580Rationale

    We find this governance action, as proposed, to be unconstitutional.

    The proposal titled "Cardano Treasury DeFi Liquidity Budget" is Unconstitutional due to the hash of the off-chain content not matching the on-chain version.

    Hash Mismatch

    Article III, Section 5 of the Cardano Constitution states:

    … prior to being recorded or enacted on-chain, all proposed governance actions are expected to follow a standardized and legible format including a URL and hash of all documented off-chain content to the Cardano Blockchain.

    …

    The content of every on-chain governance action must be identical to the final off-chain version of the proposed action.

    This requirement ensures transparency, prevents tampering, and maintains trust in the governnce process. Although Cardano Atlantic Council does recognize the error may not have been made by the proposal submitter and that inadequate tooling affected the process, we must declare this proposal as Unconstitutional and maintain precedent.

    Altering Thresholds

    Following our own precedent (gov_action10ue...yljxu5) in dissallowing individual proposers to adjust or modify ratification thresholds within the context of their actions, we find the following:

    Article IV, Section 1 of the Cardano Constitution states:

    Existing budgets may be amended following the same process as provided in this Section 1.

    Furthermore, with relation to budget actions, Appendix I, Section 3, TREASURY-04a states:

    Withdrawals from the Cardano Blockchain treasury must not be ratified until there is a Cardano Community approved Cardano Blockchain ecosystem budget then in effect pursuant to a previous on-chain governance action agreed by the DReps with a threshold of greater than 50% of the active voting stake

    The language of this proposal suggests that it may be edited by submission of a subsequent governance action but specifies 67% thresholds at multiple points. This directly contradicts the two articles cited above and makes this proposal Unconstitutional.

  • Eastern Cardano Council2ea7a78e…10ec
    NoExpired · term ends epoch 580Rationale

    We have determined that this budget Info governance action is unconstitutional.

    Article III, Section 5 of the Cardano Constitution states "…all proposed governance actions are expected to follow a standardized and legible format including a URL and hash of all documented off-chain content to the Cardano Blockchain." and "The content of every on-chain governance action must be identical to the final off-chain version of the proposed action."

    The anchor URL included on-chain for the governance action with ID "4840e305563327...c384#0" is https://raw.githubusercontent.com/theeldermillenial/2025-liquidity-budget/df0b26d8796b19b566008ea9eaa8f17fef2cb6d4/info.jsonld. The hash of the off-chain content at that URL is "97df3a30b767ee5b8e2b9fde824d91d3366985243ed73c06b257c2163f9045db", whereas the hash included on-chain with the governance action is "791c6f0adc9aa9436623191d920e0648ddec0b7fdee6306cbc32ce90867ac54ad".

    As the hash submitted with the governance action does not match the hash of the off-chain content, it does not fulfil the above criteria for verifying off-chain content.

    We therefore find this governance action Unconstitutional.

    This governance action does NOT fulfil the criteria specified in the Cardano Constitution for verifying off-chain content, so is deemed unconstitutional.

  • Input | Output3c9ebce6…1e4c
    NoExpired · term ends epoch 580Rationale

    Input Output votes “No” on the “Stablecoin Liquidity Enhancement Budget 2025” governance action. The proposal, as submitted, fails to meet a critical procedural requirement outlined in Article III, Section 5 of the Cardano Constitution. Specifically, IO’s verification has found a mismatch between the content retrievable from the provided metadata anchor link and the declared metadata anchor hash. This discrepancy renders the proposal unconstitutional in its current form.

    Article III, Section 5 of the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution mandates that: "prior to being recorded or enacted on-chain, all proposed governance actions are expected to follow a standardized and legible format including a URL and hash of all documented off-chain content to the Cardano Blockchain... The content of every on-chain governance action must be identical to the final off-chain version of the proposed action."

    This provision is fundamental to the transparency, integrity, and verifiability of the on-chain governance process. It ensures that all participants in the Cardano community, including Delegated Representatives (DReps), Stake Pool Operators (SPOs), and the Constitutional Committee, can definitively ascertain and agree upon the exact off-chain details of the governance action under consideration.

    The proposal in question provides the following:

    Upon verification, Input Output has determined that the cryptographic hash (Blake2b-256) of the content retrieved from the specified Metadata anchor link does not match the Metadata anchor hash declared in the proposal.

    This mismatch signifies that the on-chain reference to the detailed off-chain documentation is unreliable. Consequently, the Cardano community cannot be assured that the content they might review via the link is the same content to which the on-chain hash purports to attest. This ambiguity undermines the constitutional requirement for a clear, verifiable, and identical link between the on-chain governance action and its off-chain specification.

    Failure to meet this requirement means the proposal does not adhere to the mandated "standardized and legible format" that guarantees the integrity of the proposal's content. Therefore, it cannot be considered constitutional.

  • Intersect Constitutional Council85c47dd4…bf64
    NoExpired · term ends epoch 580Rationale

    The Intersect Constitutional Council votes that the budget info action, “4840e305563327...c384#0”, to be unconstitutional.

    There was an error during the submission of this proposal that meant that the hash of the provided proposal metadata did not match. The proposer has already acknowledged this and has expressed an intention to resubmit the proposal in the future. Therefore, due to failing to meet Article III Section 5 “The content of every on-chain governance action must be identical to the final off-chain version of the proposed action”, the Council votes unconstitutional on this action without further deliberation.

    The Intersect Constitutional Council votes this budget info action to be unconstitutional. In voting unconstitutional on this proposal due to the mismatching hash, the Council is in keeping with previous votes where such instances have occurred, for example, the first Protocol Parameter Update for the Plutus V3 Cost Model (tx hash “cdd57a0cd3d7d5eb538dfe711278857650e22f136963d481600d1634293bf434”).

  • Cardano Foundation6796d87d…c280
    AbstainExpired · term ends epoch 580Rationale unavailable
  • Cardano Japan Council (ICC)4012cab5…0755
    Not votedExpired · term ends epoch 580No rationale
  • Emurgodc2b0706…89b8
    Not votedExpired · term ends epoch 580No rationale