Should K increased?

5 of 7 committee members voted

• Cardano Foundation6796d87d…c280

  NoExpired · term ends epoch 580Rationale unavailable
• Cardano Japan Council (ICC)4012cab5…0755

  NoExpired · term ends epoch 580Rationale

  ShareCopied

  The info action 'Should K increased?' is unconstitutional.

  This Governance Action (GA) is considered to be unconstitutional. According to Article III, Section 5 of the Interim Cardano Constitution, the primary purpose of an Info action is to record voting results without committing to any on-chain changes. These actions are intended to gauge community sentiment and provide a transparent record of the opinions expressed during governance processes. Based solely on this definition, this GA could be considered constitutional as long as it functions purely as an Info action, whose primary role is to record data without enforcing changes. However, this GA lacks foundational data for a K-value change. Article III, Section 6 outlines that any parameter change requires thorough research and objective data to support the action. The current GA, which discusses a change to the K value, lacks the necessary foundational research and objective indicators. This deficiency raises concerns regarding its validity and compliance with the Constitution. The practice of recording voting results on-chain without sufficient supporting data poses a risk. According to the governance principles outlined in the Constitution, on-chain records should support well-informed and data-backed governance. Recording results without foundational data may lead to future decisions influenced by incomplete or insufficient information, undermining the integrity of the governance process. While the purpose of an Info action is to record data, if the recorded result does not contribute to appropriately informed discussions, it could negatively impact future debates. Article III, Section 5 states that Info actions are designed to capture useful and relevant community sentiment. If a result based on inadequate data remains on-chain, it undermines the action’s intended purpose and misaligns with constitutional goals. Considering the points outlined above, this GA does not meet the constitutional requirements. Therefore, it deviates from the intended purpose of Info actions as defined in the Interim Constitution, rendering it unconstitutional.

• Intersect Constitutional Council85c47dd4…bf64

  NoExpired · term ends epoch 580Rationale

  ShareCopied

  The info action “Should K increased?” is not constitutional due to not having sufficient rationale to justify the action.

  Understanding of facts

  The format of the proposal
  It is an info action per technical standards of CIP-1694 and article 3 section 5 of the Interim Constitution.

  Regarding the wording of K-parameter
  While the K parameter has long-been discussed amongst the Cardano community, it should be noted that the particular parameter to which it historically referred is now officially known as stakePoolTargetNum within the Interim Constitution guardrails section (Appendix I: Section 2.4). While this in itself may or may not affect the constitutionality of the info action, it does raise an educational opportunity. “stakePoolTargetNum” is a more accessible parameter name for wider ecosystem participants to understand rather than the previous vagueness of “K”, and it also raises the importance of the accurate usage of parameter names in any future governance action.

  The info action as the Intersect Council understands it
  The info action informs of the proposer's understanding of the K and a0 parameter. It is stated to “by no means a suggestion of what Cardano protocol parameters should be modified to or if they should be modified at this time. The goal of this governance action is to increase governance participation before the next hardfork”. However the title of the proposal is a question if K should be increased: “Should K increased?”. The Intersect Council interprets this to be that the proposal does not state what specifically it should be changed into or if it needs to be modified at this time, but that as the title says, the info action raises the question if K should be increased and that is the subject of the community poll.

  The supporting material is not sufficient
  Article 6 section 3 covers any governance action submitted to Ada holders for approval and has standards in terms of sufficient rationale to justify “requested change to the Cardano Blockchain” and with a minimum a title, abstract, reason for the proposal, and relevant supporting materials. In this case the info action asks “Should K increased?” does not include sufficient relevant supporting material per the opinion of the Intersect Council as the provided supporting material is A) a link to Atrium labs that is not sufficiently relevant, B) a link to a video by Atrium Labs in relation to Cardano governance that is not sufficiently relevant and C) an educational post on what is cryptocurrency by Atrium Labs that is not sufficiently relevant. The info action itself gives a short description of K without going into any details of how an increase of K (as per the title of the proposal) would affect the Cardano blockchain, and seems more relevant for promoting Atrium Labs, than for informing the voters on the community poll question to a sufficient degree.

  Rationale:

  Does the info action fulfill the requirements in the constitution?
  The action is an info action gauging sentiment. In this case in regards to governance participation and related to K and a0, so it fulfills the requirements in article 3 section 5 of being an info action for community sentiment gauging.

  The info action only partially fulfills the standards in article 3 section 6 for all governance actions. It is in a standardized and legible format and includes a url and a hash linked to a document off-chain. However, the supporting material is not relevant and not sufficient for the question asked in the community sentiment poll.

  Given that the info action only partially fulfills the requirements in article 3 section 6 it is not constitutional.

  The Intersect Council notes we only vote on the constitutionality of the rationale not being sufficient, and have not supported or gone against any increase or decrease in K(stakePoolTargetNum).

  A discussion of the intent of info actions and standards related to info actions being tools for community sentiment
  As discussed in the Intersect Councils rationale for governance action 15f82a365bdee4...c916#0 (Hosky HF) the Intersect Council believes there are minimum standards to info actions. To quote our previous rationale: “For example one could risk not upholding the standards in article 3 section 6 of governance if the council abstained from voting on the constitutionality of info actions that were purely commercial advertisements without any rationale, and especially so if there were multiple such info actions making it harder for the community to read and digest community sentiment gauging info actions.”

  We believe by ensuring that info actions have sufficient rationales and are not seen as pure commercial advertisements we ensure the integrity of the info action as a community sentiment gauging tool and that in turn promotes effective governance. The Intersect Council also share the sentiment of the Cardano Foundations rationale in their no vote on the action 7fd6429add8f26...58d7#0 (“Should K increased?”) where they highlight article 1 section 1 to uphold transparency, openness and responsible governance and that the lack of relevant supporting material and the potential promotional nature of the proposal does not align with responsible governance practice.

  The Intersect Council would also highlight the opportunity for the community to refine info actions as community sentiment gauges with off-chain discussions in the various tools online before submitting for the entire Cardano community on-chain. By promoting a culture of such discussions we ensure that on-chain governance is transparent and where community sentiment is done at a stage when the community is informed on a topic thus promoting effective governance. Polls related to changing protocol parameters should at a minimum have a discussion of what the proposer believes would be the effect of the proposed change or range of changes proposed.

  The info action “Should K increased?” is not constitutional.

• Cardano Atlantic Council07e0eb70…5bde

  AbstainResigned · term ends epoch 580Rationale

  ShareCopied

  As the Interim Constitutional Committee, our primary responsibility is to safeguard the integrity of Cardano's governance framework. By choosing to abstain from this proposal, we avoid setting a precedent in cases where sentiment-based proposals are not tied to substantive governance changes. This allows the community's voices to guide the process without intervention from the Committee, preserving neutrality and ensuring that our involvement remains focused on matters that directly impact governance or require constitutional interpretation.

  As the Interim Constitutional Committee, our primary responsibility is to
  safeguard the integrity of Cardano's governance framework. By choosing to
  abstain from this proposal, we avoid setting a precedent in cases where
  sentiment-based proposals are not tied to substantive governance changes. This
  allows the community's voices to guide the process without intervention from the
  Committee, preserving neutrality and ensuring that our involvement remains
  focused on matters that directly impact governance or require constitutional
  interpretation. [Article VI, Section 1]

• Eastern Cardano Council2ea7a78e…10ec

  AbstainExpired · term ends epoch 580Rationale

  ShareCopied

  We have determined that this Info Action does not meet the criteria deemed necessary for the Constitutional Committee to assess its constitutionality.

  Based on the provisions of the Interim Constitution described in the two considerations below, the Interim Constitutional Committee should in principle submit an abstention vote on information actions that do not measure sentiment for other governance actions enacted on-chain.

  The governance action with ID "7fd6429add8f26...58d7#0" and title "Should K increased?" states "This governance action is by no means a suggestion of what Cardano protocol parameters should be modified to or if they should be modified at this time.", indicating that it is an information action that does not measure sentiment for other governance actions enacted on-chain. This also does not mandate any changes to the Cardano blockchain in any broader sense.

  Therefore we Abstain.

  Consideration 1

  Article VI Section 1 of the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Interim Constitution states "The Constitutional Committee shall comprise a set of Ada holders that is collectively responsible for ensuring that on-chain governance actions prior to enactment on-chain, are constitutional."

  Given that "Info" actions cannot be performed on-chain, the Constitutional Committee may not necessarily need to evaluate the constitutionality of “Info” governance actions.

  Consideration 2

  Article III Section 5 of the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Interim Constitution states "A special form of governance action exists to allow community sentiment to be gauged without committing to any on-chain change. "Info" actions have no on-chain effect other than recording the votes on the action."

  It may therefore be reasonable to assume that for any "Info" governance actions that are meant to gauge the sentiment towards another type of governance action which CAN be enacted on-chain, an assessment of the constitutionality of that future governance action would be beneficial to the purpose of the "Info" governance action being used to assess it.

  We abstain from assessing the constitutionality of this governance action as it is not enforceable.

• Emurgodc2b0706…89b8

  Not votedExpired · term ends epoch 580No rationale
• Input | Output3c9ebce6…1e4c

  Not votedExpired · term ends epoch 580No rationale