Update Constitutional Committee 2026
144 DReps voted · 49 with a rationale · 4 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes3.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes3M ₳Rationale
Voting YES to follow through with the community's governance choices. Despite any personal disagreements I may have over who is on the CC, I expect them to hold their positions in high regard, vote in a timely manner, and treat every Cardano community member with respect going forward.
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
私は本Update Committeeガバナンスアクションに賛成します。
本アクションは、公開された2026年Constitutional Committee選挙と独立監査によって確認された結果をオンチェーンへ反映し、Epoch 653以降もConstitutional Committeeの機能を維持するために必要なものです。
選挙参加が38 DRepに留まったことや、stake-weighted votingにおける大口DRepの影響については、今後改善すべき課題だと考えます。しかし、選挙手続は公開され、候補登録、投票、オンチェーン検証、独立監査が実施されており、結果を尊重する合理的な根拠があります。
本アクションはTreasury支出を伴わず、7名体制と2/3の委員会閾値を維持します。Cardanoガバナンスの継続性と選挙結果の正当な実装を支持するため、私はYESと投票します。
I vote YES on this Update Committee governance action.
This action is necessary to implement the independently audited results of the public 2026 Constitutional Committee election on-chain and maintain a functioning Constitutional Committee beyond Epoch 653.
Only 38 DReps participated in the election, and the influence of large DReps under stake-weighted voting should be addressed in future elections. However, the process included open candidate registration, public voting, on-chain verification, and an independent audit. These provide reasonable grounds to respect the election results.
This action requires no Treasury funding and maintains the seven-member committee and its two-thirds threshold. I therefore vote YES to support governance continuity and the legitimate implementation of the election results.
- YesChanged2.5M ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain27d agoSuperseded
- Yes2.5M ₳Rationale
keep things moving people
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳Rationale
I vote Yes to ratify the independently audited results of the 2026 Constitutional Committee election.
I was one of the 38 participating DReps, and Philip DiSarro, Leandros BSP, Marek Mahut and Cardano Curia were my four selections.
This action respects the election outcome, preserves continuity within the Constitutional Committee and appoints a strong, balanced group to apply the Constitution carefully, transparently and independently.
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
We agree to the update.
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
Voting to confirm the new CC members. Congratulations to those elected.
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on "Update Constitutional Committee 2026" because Cardano needs a functioning Constitutional Committee and this action implements an audited election result without changing the quorum or using treasury funds. I share the concern that an off-chain election creates an extra, opaque layer: many DReps may miss it, and the final on-chain vote can become a rubber stamp on a popularity contest. However, blocking a valid result now would leave too few members for the committee to operate; that is a worse outcome than confirming it. This YES is not approval of every candidate or of the current process: future CC elections should be discoverable in GovTool, let DReps assess candidates directly, and require clear conflict and conduct safeguards.
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
Procedural measure to ensure the committee continues to operate and to comply with the constitution. Process has been followed.
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
This proposal dutifully follows the letter of Cardano’s constitution and procedural guardrails, but it glosses over a far more** critical issue: the integrity and professionalism of those we entrust with constitutional stewardship.**
**Electing members who have not demonstrated the decorum expected of a Constitutional Committee risks eroding community trust and governance legitimacy. **Technical acumen and business savvy are necessary but insufficient when the role demands impartiality, respect, and a commitment to collaborative governance. The absence of any filter or standard for conduct beyond vote totals leaves the door open for personalities that fracture rather than unify.
Given the Constitutional Committee’s role as a governance cornerstone,** I strongly believe that we must hold members to a higher bar, not just a numerical one. I for one cannot endorse a renewal that fails to address these qualitative concerns.** The Cardano governance framework demands professionalism, not just participation. No from me.
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain984.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes932K ₳No rationale
- Yes928.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes925.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes923.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes877K ₳No rationale
- Yes857.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes830.8K ₳Rationale
We support Intersect lead election process and its result.
- Yes800.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes795.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes737.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes627.2K ₳Rationale
I vote Yes, the selection process has already taken place powered by Ekklesia but run by Intersect MBO, the results have been audited. This is a simple procedural vote to ratify that outcome on-chain to ensure CC continuity is maintained without interruption.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I vote Yes, the selection process has already taken place powered by Ekklesia but run by Intersect MBO, the results have been audited. This is a simple procedural vote to ratify that outcome on-chain to ensure CC continuity is maintained without interruption.
The successful candidates will serve new terms ending at Epoch 799, in accordance with the current committeeMaxTermLength protocol parameter.
In accordance with the Cardano constitution, Article III, Section 3 (2), Intersect has facilitated a public “process… for [the] election of members of the CC consistent with the requirements of the Guardrails”, to update the positions due to expire at Epoch 653. The four candidates who received the most votes, by voting power, are elected. In this round, all four elected members are seated for the same term of 146 epochs (approximately two years), which is the current limit of the committeeMaxTermLength protocol parameter.
This governance action officially endorses the results of that electoral process and updates the Constitutional Committee accordingly. No changes are made to the quorum, which will remain ⅔.
Re-election and the term limit.
committeeMaxTermLength caps each individual term, measured from the epoch of enactment. It does not cap cumulative or continuous service across terms. Cardano Curia and Philip DiSarro (Phil_uplc) are being re-elected, but each receives a fresh maximum-length term measured from this action's enactment; the time already served on their current seats (which expire at Epoch 653) does not count toward the 146-epoch limit. Their new term begins where the current one ends, so this is a seamless renewal rather than an extension stacked on top of the existing term.Note. This action changes only the four expiring seats. The remaining three committee members - Eastern Cardano Council, Tingvard, and Ace Alliance, whose terms expire at epoch 726 - are unchanged and are not included in this action.
Committee after enactment:
Marek Mahut, Cardano Curia, Philip DiSarro, Leandros BSP, Eastern Cardano Council, Tingvard and Ace Alliance - Yes623.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes590.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes545K ₳Rationale
I support the** Update Constitutional Committee 2026 **proposal.
For me, the most important consideration in this vote is respect for a governance process that has already been completed. The 2026 Constitutional Committee election has concluded, the results have been independently audited, and DReps have selected the four candidates through the established voting process.
Since the process has been duly completed, I prefer to see the election outcome formally recorded on-chain, and to allow the Constitutional Committee to maintain the continuity of its operations.
Looking at the backgrounds of the four candidates, I believe each brings a distinct form of value.
Philip DiSarro (Phil_uplc) has long been involved in Cardano smart contract security, formal verification, and developer tooling, and also carries practical experience in both the ecosystem and governance. Regarding certain controversies that remain under discussion in the community, I will continue to pay attention. At the same time, I do not wish to dismiss years of technical contribution and existing governance experience solely on the basis of information that has not yet been fully clarified.
Marek Mahut has a substantial track record in Cardano infrastructure, the open-source community, and the SPO ecosystem. His work on Blockfrost, together with his earlier involvement in community and open-source efforts, gives me a relatively high degree of confidence in his technical and ecosystem contributions.
Cardano Curia represents a different model of governance experience. Participating as a consortium, consistently publishing rationales for its votes, and placing emphasis on evidence and constitutional grounding is an approach that I believe deserves continued observation and recognition.
As for Leandros BSP, the publicly verifiable technical and governance record is currently more limited, consisting mainly of Catalyst proposals and community participation. For this reason, I look forward to seeing the concrete contributions he will make once he takes up the role on the Constitutional Committee.
I recognise that stepping forward to participate in Cardano governance already carries considerable responsibility, and that this itself warrants a basic level of respect.
For these reasons, I am casting a Yes vote.
I am supporting the completed election process and the continuity of the Constitutional Committee’s work, while remaining open to forming further judgements based on actual performance going forward. - Yes501.3K ₳Rationale
- Yes448.9K ₳No rationale
- Abstain436.1K ₳Rationale
Abstaining on this one. I don't want and participate in off-chain elections. I very much think that they are the wrong way and show that we have an immature and incomplete on-chain governance system, should be ashamed of that, and fix that as soon as possible instead of working with these ridiculous Intersect shenanigans.
- Yes432.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes409.2K ₳No rationale
- No347.7K ₳No rationale