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

Treasury Withdrawals (4b10e579#0)

System7mo ago1 post
DReps 187SPOs 0CC 7

6 of 7 committee members voted

  • Ace Alliance71aa5b3a…8f04
    NoActive · term ends epoch 726Rationale

    Ace Alliance finds the proposed “Cardano DeFi Liquidity Budget - Withdrawal 1” Treasury Withdrawals Governance Action unconstitutional under Article II.6.1.

    There is a PDF provided for this Rationale https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmVPFKALovW1VoJfZ7B4bU1U1bJnoD9FSjsp2DLCHKQLp8 .

    Ace Alliance finds the proposed “Cardano DeFi Liquidity Budget - Withdrawal 1” Treasury Withdrawals Governance Action (gov_action1fvg...xtz8r7) unconstitutional under Article II.6.1 (mutable URL).

    This Treasury Withdrawals Governance Action (TWGA) seeks to withdraw 500,000 ada from the Cardano Treasury to establish a foundation, create smart contracts, and audit said smart contracts for a DeFi liquidity fund.

    Under II.6.1, all governance actions “shall follow a standardized and legible format before being recorded or enacted on-chain. This format shall include a URL hosting a document that outlines additional context for the proposed governance action, and the hash of this document. The document hosted by such a URL shall be immutable and incapable of being altered after submission, and the content of every on-chain Governance Action must be identical to the final off-chain version of the proposed action.” This TWGA is unconstitutional on this basis because it utilizes a mutable, main-branch Github URL capable of post-submission alteration instead of the commit-hash URL that Github is capable of producing to ensure immutability.

    Ace Alliance finds this Treasury Withdrawals Governance Action Unconstitutional under Article II.6.1.

  • Cardano Japan Council725d4d44…7b31
    NoExpired · term ends epoch 653Rationale

    We consider this governance action to be unconstitutional.

    This proposal is determined to be unconstitutional, as it fails to satisfy multiple requirements of the amended Cardano Constitution. First, the off-chain documentation associated with this governance action is hosted on a mutable GitHub URL, such that the contents of the referenced documents remain technically alterable even after submission. However, Article II, Section 6 of the Cardano Constitution explicitly requires that “any document hosted at the referenced URL must be immutable.” Because the proposal relies on documentation that does not meet this immutability requirement at the time of submission, the proposal fails to ensure the verifiability and integrity of the governance action as required by the Constitution. Second, the proposal asserts that the requested Treasury Withdrawal is based on an “approved budget,” citing a previously ratified Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget via a Budget Info Action. Under the amended Constitution, the Budget Info Action has been abolished, and Info Actions no longer possess any legal or constitutional authority to approve budgets. Accordingly, the cited Budget Info Action cannot constitute a valid constitutional basis for an approved budget, and the prerequisite conditions for a Treasury Withdrawal are therefore not met. For these reasons, this proposal does not comply with the amended Cardano Constitution and is thus determined to be unconstitutional.

    For the reasons stated above, we determine that it is unconstitutional.

  • Eastern Cardano Council2ea7a78e…10ec
    NoActive · term ends epoch 726Rationale

    We have determined that this Treasury Withdrawal governance action is unconstitutional.

    Article II, Section 7 of the Cardano Constitution defines the criteria for Treasury Withdrawal governance actions to be considered constitutional.

    The governance action with ID "gov_action1fvg...xtz8r7" and title "Cardano DeFi Liquidity Budget - Withdrawal 1", as a Treasury Withdrawal governance action, complies with all but two of the criteria, as follows.

    Section 7.1 states ""Treasury Withdrawals" actions must specify the terms of the withdrawal. This shall include: the purpose of the withdrawal, the period for delivery of proposed activities which the withdrawal shall be used for, the relevant costs and expenses of the proposed activities, circumstances under which the withdrawal might be refunded to the Cardano Treasury." This governance action does NOT specify "circumstances under which the withdrawal might be refunded to the Cardano Treasury."

    Section 7.2 states ""Treasury Withdrawals" actions shall disclose whether the prospective recipient of the "Treasury Withdrawals" action has received ada from the Cardano Treasury within the last 24 months." This governance action does NOT disclose whether the recipient has "received ada from the Cardano Treasury within the last 24 months."

    We therefore find this governance action Unconstitutional.

    This governance action does NOT sufficiently fulfil the criteria specified for Treasury Withdrawals in the Cardano Constitution, so is deemed unconstitutional.

  • KtorZ64f97568…3a49
    NoExpired · term ends epoch 653Rationale

    Unfortunate timing for this proposal which arrives alongside a constitutional change. Few misalignments mostly due to this.

    The main offending traits are:

    • The main rationale document isn't content-addressed, and being a malleable URL as per Article II Section 6. Even though that constitutional requirement is a bit redundant due to the presence of a content hash alongside the URL, it is nonetheless required.

    • As per Article 2 Section 7.1, the terms of the withdrawal must also be clearly stated. Yet the period of delivery and refunding conditions aren't quite clear or stated. There are multiple timeframes mentioned in the proposal, but the overall timeline is unclear.

    Also, not as important but still encouraged: the proposal refers to its past budget without explicitly linking to it. To avoid confusion or misinterpretation, I'd advise to always clearly communicate a governance action id or at minima a transaction hash when referring to previous proposals.

  • Phil_uplc68bb0b42…8746
    NoActive · term ends epoch 799Rationale

    Metadata not immutable.

    A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

    Metadata not immutable.

  • Tingvard646d1b3a…be43
    NoActive · term ends epoch 726Rationale

    Tingvard judges this governance action unconstitutional.

    This governance action is submitted as a Treasury Withdrawals action and is therefore subject to the governance action standards set out in Article II, Section 6 and the mandatory requirements set out in Article II, Section 7 of the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution.
    A previously approved Budget Info Action does exist and is referenced by this proposal as the basis for the requested withdrawal. Under the prior constitutional framework, such budget Info actions were treated as having a recognized role in establishing budget expectations for subsequent treasury withdrawals. However, under the current Constitution, budget Info actions are not recognized as binding and are not assigned any constitutional effect.
    The Constitution assigns all binding budget and treasury requirements exclusively to Treasury Withdrawals actions. It does not recognize prior Info actions as satisfying, supplementing, or substituting for the requirements imposed by Article II, Section 7. As a result, a Treasury Withdrawals action must be fully self contained and must independently satisfy all constitutional requirements, without reliance on external or superseded governance actions.
    This governance action explicitly relies on a budget approval mechanism that is no longer recognized under the current Constitution. By grounding the withdrawal request in a previously approved Budget Info Action that has no constitutional standing under the current framework, the proposal fails to establish a valid constitutional basis for the requested treasury withdrawal.
    The Constitution contains no transition or grandfathering provisions that would permit Treasury Withdrawals actions to rely on budget approvals granted under prior constitutional interpretations. In the absence of such provisions, the Constitutional Committee is required to assess this action solely against the Constitution as currently in force.
    Accordingly, because this Treasury Withdrawals action depends on a governance action type that is no longer constitutionally binding, it does not meet the budget related requirements imposed by Article II, Section 7 and must be judged unconstitutional.

    Tingvard judges this governance action unconstitutional. Although a previously approved Budget Info Action exists, the current Constitution does not recognize budget Info actions as binding. Because this Treasury Withdrawals action relies on a governance action type that no longer has constitutional effect, it fails to meet the budget related requirements of Article II, Section 7 and cannot be approved.

  • Cardano Curia84feba94…6bd5
    Not votedActive · term ends epoch 799No rationale