Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit.
4 of 6 committee members voted
- Ace Alliance71aa5b3a…8f04YesActive · term ends epoch 726Rationale
Ace Alliance finds the proposed “Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit.” Governance Action Constitutional.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
This Budget Info Action (gov_action1x2z...2dgc7q) seeks a total of 103,000 ada to reimburse (100,000 ada) and compensate (3,000 ada) those who paid, but were not refunded, the 100,000 ada Governance Action deposit for Info Action “Cardanoの生きがい - Ikigai -” (gov_action1t87...ymg588).
While this Budget Info Action indicates the 103,000 ada will be immediately distributed to the intended recipient, it does not signal intent to utilize the original Ikigai Action’s reward address (stake1uys93fhep4lc2u6lu0q09kcxayxzthasded35c0x0w60ugc9s0cm5), or any other specific reward address, as recipient to achieve this aim. Our decision finding this Action Constitutional is predicated on the direct distribution of such funds from the Treasury to the intended recipients. The link between the intended recipients and the recipient address to be designated in a future Treasury Withdrawal Governance Action must be substantiated by sufficient evidence in immutable form. While the clearest path to establishing this is designating the original Ikigai Action’s reward address as recipient of the funds, the fact said address remains unregistered risks further loss of funds unless registered.
Article III, Section 5 indicates “...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. Sufficient rationale shall be provided to justify the requested change to the Cardano Blockchain. The rationale shall include, at a minimum, a title, abstract, reason for the proposal, and relevant supporting materials. The content of every on-chain governance action must be identical to the final off-chain version of the proposed action.” This Budget Info Action meets these expectations.
Article IV, Section 1 provides that “...budgets are expected to cover not less than a period of 73 epochs (approximately one calendar year) but nothing shall prevent the Cardano Community from proposing budgets for shorter or longer time periods.” This Budget Info Action, for the unique reasons cited, proposes a direct and immediate distribution of 103,000 ada to the specified recipient following approval of this Action and a subsequent Treasury Withdrawal Governance Action.
Article IV, Section 2 requires “Cardano Blockchain budgets shall specify a process for overseeing use of funds from Cardano Blockchain treasury withdrawals including designating one or more administrators who shall be responsible for such oversight.” This Budget Info Action anticipates a direct and immediate distribution to the intended recipients upon approval of a subsequent Treasury Withdrawal Governance Action and names DReps as Administrator. In this case, the process for overseeing the use of such funds both begins and ends with the same automated disbursement by the protocol from the Treasury to the designated recipient. Here, the protocol itself would function as Administrator for the purposes of compliance with this Section; overseeing this unique, unconditional, direct payment. Under these circumstances, such arrangement is objectively superior in transparency and efficacy than alternative options involving the introduction of an intermediary as Administrator — and an example of where possible and beneficial to “use blockchain technology in the governance process” (Preamble), and the utilization of “smart contracts and other other blockchain based tools to…ensure transparency” in the administration of this budget (Article IV, Section 2). While we appreciate the good faith intent of this Action’s proposers in naming DReps as Administrator for the purpose of compliance with this Section, we find the protocol itself satisfies such requirements here. Recognizing DReps as an Administrator poses unexplored potential risks, raises likely conflicts of interest, raises questions as to consent, and does not need to be explored or relied upon here.
Article IV, Section 3, Sentence 1 provides “Withdrawals from the Cardano Blockchain treasury that would cause the Cardano Blockchain treasury balance to violate the then applicable net change limit shall not be permitted.” As indicated in our voting rationale for Budget Info Action “Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget” (gov_action1u4j...t3alsy), “we cannot assess a Budget Info Action today, against an undetermined Net Change Limit in force on some future day, when a corresponding Treasury Withdrawal Governance Action might be evaluated. We have a Net Change Limit, and no Treasury Change results from either possible outcome of a proposed Budget Info Action. For these reasons, we reserve evaluation of constitutionality on Net Change Limit grounds for Treasury Withdrawal Governance Actions.”
Article IV, Section 4, Sentence 1 provides “Any governance action requesting ada from the Cardano Blockchain treasury shall require an allocation of ada as a part of such funding request to cover the cost of periodic independent audits and the implementation of oversight metrics as to the use of such ada.” The express purpose, unique facts, and optimally trustless proposed means underpinning this Budget Info Action fulfill the constitutional requirements of the Section. As laid out above in relation to Article IV, Section 2, the facts underlying this Action are distinguished from each of the ten preceding Budget Info Actions submitted. This Action endeavors to authorize a single automated transfer, for a uniquely remedial purpose, utilizing the most trustless and efficient means available. The alternative means — adding unnecessary intermediaries for the sake of transparency, audit, and oversight — would provide no additional benefit over protocol adjudication, and would only introduce intermediary risks cutting against those exact aims of the Constitution.
Article IV, Section 4, Sentence 2 indicates “Contractual obligations governing the use of ada received from the Cardano Blockchain treasury pursuant to a Cardano Blockchain ecosystem budget shall include dispute resolution provisions.” Based on the same context and reasoning detailed above, the protocol-adjudicated means proposed in this Action obviates the need for, and any benefit of, contractual obligations.
Ace Alliance finds the proposed “Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit.” Governance Action Constitutional.
- Eastern Cardano Council2ea7a78e…10ecYesActive · term ends epoch 726Rationale
We have determined that this budget Info governance action is constitutional.
Article IV, Section 2 of the Cardano Constitution states "Cardano Blockchain budgets shall specify a process for overseeing use of funds from Cardano Blockchain treasury withdrawals including designating one or more administrators who shall be responsible for such oversight."
The governance action with ID "gov_action1x2z...2dgc7q" and title "Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit.", as a budget Info governance action, nominates the DReps as the administrator responsible for overseeing the use of funds, as "they will be responsible for executing the distribution."
We therefore find this governance action Constitutional.
This governance action sufficiently fulfils the criteria specified for budgets in the Cardano Constitution, so is deemed constitutional.
- Tingvard646d1b3a…be43YesActive · term ends epoch 726Rationale
Tingvard judge the “Reimbursement of the Ikigai Info Action Deposit” budget Info action constitutional.
This governance action is properly framed as a budget Info action under Article III, § 4 and Article IV, § 1. It requests a budget allocation of 103,000 ada to reimburse the submitter of the September 2024 “Ikigai” Info action, who irrevocably lost their 100,000 ada governance deposit due to a software defect that allowed a governance action to be submitted using an unregistered stake key. The proposal includes an abstract, motivation, rationale, and valid anchor hash as required under Article III, § 5. The governance action satisfies the structural requirements of Article IV, § 2 through § 5. For purposes of administration, the DReps are designated as the temporary “administrator” responsible for executing the distribution, thereby meeting the administrator designation requirement under Article IV, § 2, despite the absence of ongoing or complex fund management. Because the entire amount is disbursed directly to the intended recipient, the administrative burden is minimal yet sufficiently aligned with the constitutional requirement. The requested amount is well within the Net-Change Limit as defined under Article IV, § 3. The proposal also satisfies Article IV, § 4, since the distribution can be immutably verified on-chain and requires no ongoing auditing beyond the public record of the disbursement itself. The Constitution does not require independent audit processes for immediate one-time distributions when full auditability is inherently guaranteed through the ledger. The purpose of this reimbursement — correcting a loss originating from a defect in Cardano’s governance infrastructure — aligns with the constitutional Tenets of fairness, transparency, and long-term sustainability. By providing redress for harms caused by systemic shortcomings rather than user misbehavior or speculation, the action reinforces trust in the governance system during its early lifespan and strengthens the incentives for constructive community participation.
Tingvard find this budget Info action constitutional. It conforms to Article III, § 4–5, and Article IV, § 1–5, and aligns with the Tenets of fairness, transparency, and long-term sustainability. The governance design ensures clear administrator designation, complete on-chain auditability, compliance with treasury limits, and a narrowly tailored remediation of a governance-related loss.
- Cardano Japan Council725d4d44…7b31AbstainExpired · term ends epoch 653Rationale
We abstain from a constitutional determination.
The claim for the outstanding portion of the deposit, 100,000 ADA, in this proposal is justified. However, the claim for 3,000 ADA can be considered unjustified. As opinions within the team were divided, we abstain from making a constitutional judgment.
The request to withdraw 100,000 ADA itself is legitimate, but the 3,000 ADA portion cannot necessarily be deemed constitutional. Furthermore, the information provided is insufficient for a treasury withdrawal governance action. Therefore, we abstain.
- KtorZ64f97568…3a49Not votedExpired · term ends epoch 653No rationale
- Phil_uplc68bb0b42…8746Not votedExpired · term ends epoch 653No rationale