Reduce the committeeMinSize parameter from 7 to 5
180 DReps voted · 59 with a rationale · 3 changed their vote · 7 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 3 to yes, together voting with 26.2M ₳ of voting power.
- Yes9.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes9.5M ₳Rationale
I am voting Yes on reducing the Constitutional Committee minimum size from 7 to 5. In simple terms, this doesn’t change what the Constitutional Committee does—it simply makes it easier to keep the committee functional when members step down, terms expire, or replacements take time to appoint. A minimum of 5 members still provides multiple independent voices and safeguards while reducing the risk of the committee becoming unable to operate due to vacancies. To me, this is a practical governance adjustment that improves continuity and resilience without meaningfully reducing oversight or decentralization.
- Abstain8.9M ₳Rationale
RCADA votes ABSTAIN on Reduce the committeeMinSize parameter from 7 to 5.
RCADA recognises the genuine operational issue this proposal addresses. With both the current Constitutional Committee and
committeeMinSizeset at 7, the system has no buffer. A single resignation, term expiry, registration issue, or temporary inactivity can immediately affect the committee’s ability to ratify governance actions that require Constitutional Committee approval, including parameter changes, Treasury withdrawals, Constitution updates, and hard forks.This is a real governance resilience concern. RCADA agrees that Cardano governance should not be fragile enough that one or two committee availability issues can create system-wide disruption.
RCADA also recognises that this resubmission gives the community a proper opportunity to review the proposal after the previous action was affected by parameter-action coordination issues. RCADA’s prior abstain was largely procedural and should not be read as opposition to improving Constitutional Committee resilience.
However, RCADA is not fully convinced that lowering the minimum from 7 to 5 is the strongest long-term governance design.
While the proposal addresses an immediate pain point, it does so by reducing the floor of one of Cardano’s key constitutional safeguards. Even if the current intention is to keep operating with a seven-member committee, protocol parameters can shape future behaviour. A lower minimum may make it easier over time to normalise operating with fewer committee members.
RCADA believes a stronger long-term structure may be to expand the target Constitutional Committee size while maintaining a higher minimum. For example, electing 9 members with a minimum of 7 could provide a similar operational buffer while better preserving representation, legitimacy, and resilience.
RCADA also remains cautious about voting dynamics at a smaller committee size. Under the current two-thirds threshold, a seven-member committee requires 5 constitutional votes to approve, while a five-member committee requires 4. At five members, inactivity or opposition from a small number of members can have a larger effect on whether governance actions progress.
This abstain is not opposition to improving governance resilience. RCADA supports fixing the current brittleness. However, we prefer solving it through a broader discussion on Constitutional Committee design rather than only lowering the minimum parameter.
The preferred steady state should remain a healthy, full-sized Constitutional Committee, not one operating near the bare minimum.
For these reasons, RCADA votes ABSTAIN. We support preventing governance inoperability, but do not fully endorse reducing
committeeMinSizeto 5 as the best long-term path forward.RCADA's full vote assessment can be found here: "https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/."
- Abstain8.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes7.6M ₳Rationale
Voting YES for a reduction of the committeeMinSize parameter from 7 to 5
This proposal makes sense in the current governance environment. CC positions are not being compensated, there are very many GA proposals. CC members must be tired already and it is only a matter of time before a new CC member resigns.
We do not have the luxury of time in case of a resignation. I have also consulted one of the current CC members about their own opinion on the merits of this action.
- Yes7.3M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted6.8M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes2mo agoSuperseded
Yes2mo agoSuperseded
- Yes6.7M ₳No rationale
- No5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7M ₳Rationale
ack
- Yes5.5M ₳Rationale
While I would prefer maintaining the minimum of 7 Constitutional Committee members, it appears there is insufficient uncompensated participation in our ecosystem to sustain the required workload.
Therefore, I support measures that prevent operational disruptions in the event of another resignation.
We may revisit this parameter in the future should circumstances change. - Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- Abstain5.2M ₳Rationale
While we recognize the need to maintain governance continuity, lowering committeeMinSize to 5 carries a risk of centralization that far outweighs the short-term benefits. Reducing approval barriers during periods of staffing shortages can leave room for manipulation.
Instead of lowering operating standards, a more sustainable and secure solution for Cardano is to increase the total number of CC members (for example, elect to 9 or 10 people) to create a buffer above level 7, combined with fixing the incentive mechanism. Therefore, we choose to vote Abstain to show cautious neutrality, or NO to ask the community to focus on solutions that strengthen decentralization rather than temporary patch measures.
- Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.2M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "Reduce the committeeMinSize parameter from 7 to 5" (gov_action1cad...58n5ur), pois entendemos que esta alteração fortalece a resiliência operacional da governança da Cardano sem eliminar as salvaguardas constitucionais existentes. No cenário atual, em que o Comitê Constitucional possui 7 membros e o parâmetro mínimo também está fixado em 7, qualquer renúncia, término de mandato ou indisponibilidade pode comprometer o funcionamento do comitê e impedir a ratificação de ações relevantes, como mudanças de parâmetros, atualizações constitucionais, retiradas do tesouro e hard forks. Ao estabelecer o mínimo em 5, cria-se uma margem de segurança razoável para que a governança continue operando enquanto eventuais recomposições do comitê são realizadas. Também entendemos que esta proposta não reduz diretamente o número atual de membros do Comitê Constitucional, nem representa uma intenção de concentrar poder ou enfraquecer a governança. Pelo contrário, apoiamos a medida como um ajuste prudencial e reversível, voltado a evitar paralisações desnecessárias do sistema em situações excepcionais. Consideramos ainda que o novo valor permanece dentro dos limites definidos pelos guardrails aplicáveis, preserva um nível adequado de exigência para aprovação constitucional e contribui para a continuidade institucional da governança on-chain da Cardano.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action "Reduce the committeeMinSize parameter from 7 to 5" (gov_action1cad...58n5ur), because we believe this change strengthens the operational resilience of Cardano governance without removing the existing constitutional safeguards. In the current scenario, where the Constitutional Committee has 7 members and the minimum size parameter is also set to 7, any resignation, end of mandate, or unavailability could compromise the committee’s ability to function and prevent the ratification of relevant governance actions, such as parameter changes, constitutional updates, treasury withdrawals, and hard forks. Setting the minimum at 5 creates a reasonable safety margin so that governance can continue operating while any necessary committee recomposition takes place. We also understand that this proposal does not directly reduce the current number of Constitutional Committee members, nor does it represent an intention to concentrate power or weaken governance. On the contrary, we support the measure as a prudential and reversible adjustment aimed at avoiding unnecessary system paralysis in exceptional circumstances. We further consider that the new value remains within the applicable guardrail limits, preserves an adequate level of requirement for constitutional approval, and contributes to the institutional continuity of Cardano’s on-chain governance. - Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4M ₳Rationale
This makes operational sense to me in our current environment and I don't see it needs a detailed context.
- Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes3M ₳Rationale
Happy to vote Yes, I think this is a necessary step forward for the stability of on-chain governance. The Constitutional Committee is already having difficulties finding members to continue to operate, as this is an unpaid position. It would be better to reduce the number of CC members to mitigate the risk of being unable to pass any GAs without a full consortium of CC members.
I do also think that we need to either look at compensating CC members. This should be a fair and reasonable amount per seat, about half or less than half of what was proposed previously. Otherwise, we need to look at either automating the CC or abolishing it completely, as the expectation of free CC members forever won't last long.
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- No2.7M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted2.7M ₳Rationale
私は本提案に賛成します。現在のcommitteeMinSize 7は、7人のConstitutional Committeeに対して全く余裕がなく、1名の辞任・任期切れ・活動不能だけで、Parameter Change、Treasury Withdrawal、Hard Forkなど重要なガバナンス行為が停止し得る点に制度的な脆弱性があります。
committeeMinSizeを5に下げることは、CCを5人に縮小することを支持するものではなく、7席体制を維持したまま運用上の安全弁を設ける措置として妥当だと考えます。
ただし、5人CCが常態化すると少数拒否権が強まり、ガバナンスの正統性に影響し得ます。そのため、7席維持、欠員補充プロセスの透明化、CC活動状況の継続的な公開を求めた上で、私はYESを投じます。
I support this proposal. The current committeeMinSize of 7 leaves no operational buffer for a 7-member Constitutional Committee. A single resignation, term expiration, or inactive member could make key governance actions such as Parameter Changes, Treasury Withdrawals, and Hard Forks unable to progress.
Reducing committeeMinSize to 5 should not be interpreted as support for reducing the Constitutional Committee to five members. Rather, I see it as a reasonable resilience measure while maintaining the intended 7-seat Committee.
However, a 5-member Committee should not become the normal operating model, as it would increase the relative power of a small number of members to block governance actions. I support this proposal on the condition that the 7-seat structure is maintained, vacancy replacement remains transparent, and CC activity is continuously reported. Therefore, I vote YES.
Earlier votes
Yes3mo agoSuperseded
私は本提案に賛成します。現在のcommitteeMinSize 7は、7人のConstitutional Committeeに対して全く余裕がなく、1名の辞任・任期切れ・活動不能だけで、Parameter Change、Treasury Withdrawal、Hard Forkなど重要なガバナンス行為が停止し得る点に制度的な脆弱性があります。
committeeMinSizeを5に下げることは、CCを5人に縮小することを支持するものではなく、7席体制を維持したまま運用上の安全弁を設ける措置として妥当だと考えます。
ただし、5人CCが常態化すると少数拒否権が強まり、ガバナンスの正統性に影響し得ます。そのため、7席維持、欠員補充プロセスの透明化、CC活動状況の継続的な公開を求めた上で、私はYESを投じます。
I support this proposal. The current committeeMinSize of 7 leaves no operational buffer for a 7-member Constitutional Committee. A single resignation, term expiration, or inactive member could make key governance actions such as Parameter Changes, Treasury Withdrawals, and Hard Forks unable to progress.
Reducing committeeMinSize to 5 should not be interpreted as support for reducing the Constitutional Committee to five members. Rather, I see it as a reasonable resilience measure while maintaining the intended 7-seat Committee.
However, a 5-member Committee should not become the normal operating model, as it would increase the relative power of a small number of members to block governance actions. I support this proposal on the condition that the 7-seat structure is maintained, vacancy replacement remains transparent, and CC activity is continuously reported. Therefore, I vote YES.
- Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5M ₳Rationale
Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.
- Yes2.4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on this parameter-change proposal to reduce 'committeeMinSize' from 7 to 5.
My support is based on governance resilience and protocol liveness. This change does not, in my view, mean Cardano should move away from maintaining a strong seven-member Constitutional Committee. Rather, it creates a practical safety margin so that governance actions are not blocked if one or two CC seats are temporarily vacant.
The proposed value of 5 remains comfortably within the constitutional guardrails and avoids moving to the lower minimum of 3, which would create greater centralisation concerns. It is also a no-cost proposal with no treasury withdrawal.
I recognise the concern that reducing the minimum could weaken constitutional oversight if misused. However, I believe the stronger risk here is governance paralysis caused by vacancies or delayed committee replacement. Cardano needs robust checks and balances, but those checks must not become a single point of failure.
For those reasons, I support this proposal as a sensible operational resilience measure while continuing to expect the ecosystem to maintain a full, diverse, and accountable Constitutional Committee wherever possible.
- Abstain1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
Reducing the minimum CC size from 7 to 5 prevents governance from shutting down if a member resigns, as the process to replace them could take weeks or months.
The CC’s role in governance is a guard rail with well-defined responsibilities, so while it is helpful to maintain 7 members to provide a buffer, the job can be done by a smaller committee if needed (with 4/5 being required to pass a proposal, this change only reduces the required votes by one).
- Abstain1.6M ₳Rationale
I would prefer a CC composed of more individual members rather than consortiums as a solution to the problem this parameter change is trying to address. However, I recognize that this is not what the majority of the community appears to want, and we cannot risk CC fatigue leading to a governance shutdown.
I also believe that lowering this minimum will eventually result in the effective number of CC members falling to this level. In that scenario, assuming there are no abstentions, the effective approval threshold would become 80%, which I consider too high.
Given these conflicting considerations, I will vote ABSTAIN.
- Yes1.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale