Reduce minimum Constitutional Committee size (committeeMinSize) from 7 to 5
96 DReps voted · 35 with a rationale · 1 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.3M ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted1.3M ₳History
Earlier votes
No5mo agoSuperseded
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
We need more decentralization, not less. Perhaps focus on addressing the reason why there is a shortage of candidates instead of shrinking the number of seats. Atrophy is a warning signal.
- No1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes948.9K ₳No rationale
- No931.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes820.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes763.4K ₳No rationale
- No717.5K ₳Rationale
I will vote NO on this proposal.
I understand the goal is to make the Constitutional Committee more flexible. However, reducing the minimum size from 7 to 5 increases the risk of power being concentrated in fewer hands. The Committee is a key safeguard for the Constitution and treasury, and it needs enough members to ensure diversity, balance, and proper checks.
Operational issues should be solved by improving processes and elections, not by lowering standards. Decentralization and representation from the global community are important. Keeping the minimum at 7 helps protect governance integrity, so I vote NO.
- No605.7K ₳Rationale
🚨 Cardano Governance 2026: My Decision as DRep
📅 Dates
• Proposal submitted: 10 February 2026 (Epoch 612)
• Voting deadline: 16 March 2026 (Epoch 619)📌 Proposal Summary
Proposal suggests reducing the minimum Constitutional Committee size in Cardano:
➡️ Current: 7 members
➡️ Proposed: 5 members📌 My Decision
❌ I vote NO📌 Why
• Network governance is responsibility, not optional participation.
• If a committee member cannot perform duties — replacement is required, not lowering standards.
• Reducing to 5 increases decision weight of each individual member.
• Any security system degrades over time if requirements are constantly lowered.📌 Risks of Reduction
• Easier coordination of influence on decisions
• Lower barrier to impact constitutional changes
• Higher long-term centralization risk📌 My Position as DRep
Governance must be built on:
• discipline
• accountability
• stable quorum
• strong network protectionCardano is a foundation for the future financial system and crypto. Weakening core governance mechanics is strategically dangerous.
🚀 КУРС «LEDGER ХОЛОДНЫЙ КРИПТОКОШЕЛЕК» | METAMASK
https://edgarbagdasarian.justclick.ru/order/LEDGERMETAMASK🔥 ЗАКРЫТЫЙ VIP ЧАТ ПЛАТНАЯ ПОДПИСКА
https://t.me/MREDGARCROSS_BOT🌐 ВСЕ КУРСЫ И ССЫЛКИ
https://mredgarcross.com/Я зарегистрировался как DRep и готов помочь в формировании будущего экосистемы. - Оптимистично настроен на построение крупнейшего цифрового сообщества в мире. 🖤 Мой DRep ID: ➡️ drep1y269ehxj30k4vfzfc2z84v0xykd3amuy2xn0kv9zf8rhcec2fg2jr Подробнее тут https://t.me/PROCENT666/338
- No587.6K ₳No rationale
- No501K ₳Rationale
I'm voting no because this feels like we're choosing the easy fix over the right fix, and I'd rather see us solve the actual problem, which is ensuring we can maintain a full committee of seven qualified members, rather than just deciding we can make do with fewer.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
If seven members were the right number for good governance, then seven is still the right number. Reducing it to five doesn’t magically keep the same quality. It just means fewer perspectives, less debate, weaker collective judgment and a thinner security margin. Going from needing three compromised members to two is not “basically the same.” That’s a real drop in safety.
Plus, and maybe this is just me being cynical, but lowering the minimum feels like it reduces the urgency to fill vacancies. If the committee can keep chugging along at five, where's the institutional pressure to get back up to seven? We're basically building in acceptance of understaffing, which seems like exactly the wrong message to send about the importance of constitutional oversight. And once you start shrinking standards for convenience, it’s very hard to stop. - No467.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes442.9K ₳No rationale
- No414.2K ₳No rationale
- No387.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes365.7K ₳No rationale
- No325.4K ₳No rationale
- No215.5K ₳No rationale
- No150.7K ₳No rationale
- No147.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes138.4K ₳No rationale
- No135.1K ₳No rationale
- Abstain131.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes129.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes108.3K ₳Rationale
I am in favor of this change. The current min size of 7 paired with an actual committee size of 7 creates an inflexible point of failure for Cardano governance. The departure or resignation of a single member immediately pauses our ability to pass important actions. This operational fragility could force the community into rushed elections, which compromises candidate vetting.
In my view the community has a choice between two reasonable paths: maintaining a min size of 7 with an actual committee size of 9, or reducing the minimum to 5 while maintaining the committee size of 7, as is suggested by this proposal. Either would work but I prefer the latter. Seven members to me is optimal and the risk of temporarily operating with 5 or 6 members is negligible compared to the very real risk of governance paralysis or the poor decision-making that stems from emergency appointments. Either way the main risk I see here is failure to move off of the 7 and 7 scenario we are currently in. If this action does not pass I would gladly support a change to a min size of 7 and a committee size of 9. - Abstain71.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes67.1K ₳No rationale
- No64.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes52.4K ₳Rationale
I think 5 constitutional committee members is plenty. If we can achieve further decentralization by incorporating more committee members, better even, however and considering that some members are groups rather than individuals, I think all things considered we have a fairly decentralized committee, and more important even, made up of members that deserve to serve on the committee.
- Yes51.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes48.6K ₳Rationale
YES!
- Yes45.2K ₳No rationale
- No40.5K ₳No rationale
- No28.2K ₳Rationale
Reducing the minimum size of the Constitutional Committee diminishes diversity, increases the risk of capture, and weakens a vital constitutional safeguard. Operational resilience should be enhanced through better replacement mechanisms rather than by lowering the threshold.
- Yes26.7K ₳Rationale
This should have been done originally.
- Yes25.7K ₳No rationale
- No6.7K ₳No rationale
- No4.4K ₳No rationale
- Abstain153.7 ₳No rationale
- Yes123.6 ₳No rationale
- No0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale