Update Constitutional Committee 2026

On-chain governance action (New Committee).

This governance action updates the four Constitutional Committee seats whose terms expire at the end of Epoch 653 by appointing the candidates elected through the 2026 Constitutional Committee election. The successful candidates will serve new terms ending at Epoch 799, in accordance with the current committeeMaxTermLength protocol parameter.

• Proposer return address: stake1uyvjdz9rxsfsmv44rtk75k2rqyqskrga96dgdfrqjvjjpwsefcjnp
• Deposit: 100,000 ₳
• Submitted: epoch 646
• Expires: epoch 653

View in explorer

Welcome to the hunger games, Tributes.

(On a more serious note: thanks for volunteering!) Let's get the CC rolling.

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.

This action faithfully seats the candidates chosen through Intersect's open, publicly audited 2026 CC election.

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.

I believe passing this is simply recognition of the outcome a fair vote process in how our governance system is currently used. While I do not personally support all of the candidates and believe there are some that do not reflect the professionalism expected of the post, that personal opinion should not override the duty of DReps to ratify the results of free elections and processes. Thus, I vote yes.

Update Constitutional Committee 2026 — YES

I am voting YES on this update. I don't have any significant concerns with the proposed Constitutional Committee changes, and maintaining a fully functioning Constitutional Committee is important for governance continuity. This appears to be a reasonable operational update, and I support moving it forward.

Reduce minPoolCost to 75 ADA & Increase Plutus Memory Limits (Part 2) — YES

I am voting YES on these parameter updates. Lowering minPoolCost continues the effort to better align stake pool economics as rewards naturally decline, while increasing Plutus memory limits provides additional capacity for developers and smart contracts with low expected technical risk based on the testing and phased rollout that has preceded these changes.

That said, I do want to register one concern with the governance process itself. I do not believe unrelated parameter updates should be bundled into a single governance action. Each parameter change should stand on its own merits so DReps can evaluate and vote on each independently.