Update Plutus Cost Models
139 DReps voted · 47 with a rationale · 7 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
Yes, required.
- Yes4.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳Rationale
Although I am not deeply familiar with Cardano’s technical stack, I trust the experts responsible for these parameter changes, who are also actively monitoring potential security risks. I have no intention of standing in the way of this progress, so I will vote Yes and fully support the proposed parameter updates in anticipation of the next hard fork.
- Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "Update Plutus Cost Models" (gov_action1eqhnsdyf3exhp5mqt7sdjtl7xy69wqg8tvg854psns2jt72cra3qqrcnr8r), pois compreendemos que a atualização dos modelos de custo do Plutus é uma etapa necessária para preparar a rede Cardano para os novos recursos que serão disponibilizados após o hard fork van Rossem, com a adoção do Protocolo Versão 11. Avaliamos positivamente que a proposta não apenas habilita novas primitivas em Plutus V1, V2 e V3, mas também promove maior consistência entre as diferentes versões da linguagem. Essas melhorias ampliam as capacidades dos scripts Plutus em áreas como criptografia, manipulação de listas, operações com arrays e tratamento de valores e estruturas de dados, contribuindo para uma plataforma de contratos inteligentes mais eficiente e flexível. Também apoiamos a proposta porque entendemos que as alterações foram fundamentadas em resultados de benchmarking, passaram por avaliação técnica especializada e foram testadas em ambientes como SanchoNet, Preview e Preprod antes de sua aplicação em mainnet. Consideramos igualmente relevante que a proposta esteja alinhada aos guardrails constitucionais aplicáveis aos modelos de custo, especialmente no que diz respeito à necessidade de atualização diante da introdução de novas primitivas e à validação por meio de benchmarks realizados em arquiteturas de referência. Por esses motivos, entendemos que o voto "SIM" contribui para uma evolução técnica segura, eficiente e coerente da infraestrutura Plutus e do ecossistema Cardano como um todo.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action "Update Plutus Cost Models" (gov_action1eqhnsdyf3exhp5mqt7sdjtl7xy69wqg8tvg854psns2jt72cra3qqrcnr8r), because we understand that updating the Plutus cost models is a necessary step to prepare the Cardano network for the new capabilities that will become available following the van Rossem hard fork and the adoption of Protocol Version 11. We view positively that the proposal not only enables new primitives across Plutus V1, V2, and V3, but also improves consistency between the different language versions. These enhancements expand the capabilities of Plutus scripts in areas such as cryptography, list processing, array operations, and value and data manipulation, contributing to a more efficient and flexible smart contract platform. We also support the proposal because the changes are based on benchmarking results, have undergone technical review, and were tested in environments such as SanchoNet, Preview, and Preprod before being deployed to mainnet. We further consider it important that the proposal aligns with the constitutional guardrails applicable to cost models, particularly regarding the need to update them when introducing new primitives and the requirement for validation through benchmarking on reference architectures. For these reasons, we believe a "YES" vote supports the safe, efficient, and coherent technical evolution of the Plutus infrastructure and the broader Cardano ecosystem. - Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
私は本提案に賛成します。これは、Cardanoのアプリが暗号処理やトークン計算などを、より効率よく行えるようにするための基盤更新です。新しい機能を安全に使うための計算コストも、テストと測定に基づいて設定されています。
一部の既存アプリには影響が生じる可能性があるため、導入後の監視と迅速な情報共有を求めた上で、私はYESを投じます。
I support this proposal. It is an important infrastructure update that will help Cardano applications handle cryptography and token operations more efficiently. The costs for using these new functions have been set based on testing and benchmarking.
As some existing applications may be affected, I expect continued monitoring and prompt communication after implementation. With this expectation, I vote YES. - Abstain2.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5M ₳Rationale
Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
AtlasHub supports the upates to enhance the capabilities of Cardano.
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on this proposal to update the Plutus cost models.
This is a necessary technical parameter update to support the van Rossem / Protocol Version 11 upgrade and enable new Plutus primitives across Plutus V1, V2 and V3. These primitives expand the built-in functionality available to Cardano smart contract developers, while the cost model ensures that CPU and memory usage are priced appropriately and safely at the protocol level.
This proposal appears aligned with the Cardano Constitution, particularly the Plutus Cost Model guardrails requiring cost model values to be benchmarked, updated when new primitives are introduced, and supplied for each supported Plutus language version.
I recognise that changes to existing cost settings may create some operational impact for dApps that rely on hardcoded or pre-calculated execution budgets. However, the proposal has been reviewed through the relevant technical process, is based on benchmarked cost model updates, and is important for Cardano’s continued smart contract capability and developer experience.
As this is a constitutionally aligned, technically necessary, non-treasury parameter update that supports Cardano’s protocol evolution, I am voting YES.
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
Important updates to Plutus that will improve efficiency.
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted1.6M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳Rationale
The proposed changes should be proposed under Plutus V4 instead of as an extension of Plutus V3, according to CIP-35 (https://cips.cardano.org/cip/CIP-0035), as they include not backwards-compatible changes.
Additionally, even if all the changes were backwards compatible, extending the set of builtins tends to break all downstream tx builders (classic PPViewHashesDontMatch). This practice should be abolished in favour of upgrading the Plutus version when new builtins are added.
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳Rationale
**I don’t really get the technical details of Plutus cost modeling, and I’m not going to pretend that I do. **As a serious DRep, I know there’s a big difference between being diligent and just acting like an expert for show. So, I expect capable technical teams to handle the hard work on this kind of proposal. That’s why I take seriously the fact that this protocol change was suggested by Intersect’s Parameter Committee and validated by the Technical Steering Committee after thorough testing. That process is important to me.
That said, I’m not oblivious to any potential concerns and want to point out that some numbers seem off. **There are negative values even though the proposal states that the cost model follows the non-negative guardrail. Either the story is unclear, the figures shown aren’t accurate, or something's not right. **None of those scenarios is great. Trust takes time to build but can be lost in an instant. I trust the experts for now, but I don’t put them on a pedestal.
Maybe someone with more experience could take a look at this prefix issue?
- YesRevoted954K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
- Yes931.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes923.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes861.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes825.2K ₳Rationale
Impact Assessment (Pros/Cons)ProsEnhanced Resource Efficiency: Updating cost models directly adjusts how memory and CPU requirements are measured for smart contract execution. This usually decreases costs for well-optimized scripts, allowing more execution throughput per block.Network Scalability: By streamlining execution metrics, the network can process Plutus scripts faster and handle a higher volume of decentralized application (dApp) interactions without bloating the mempool or triggering congestion.Predictability for Builders: Aligning the cost models with actual benchmarked performance prevents arbitrary script failures and gives engineers precise guidelines for smart contract execution on-chain.ConsSmart Contract Retesting Requirements: Developers and teams managing active dApps must retest and potentially recalculate execution budgets for their smart contracts to ensure compliance with the updated thresholds.Risk of Performance Regression: If cost adjustments fail to fully capture peripheral corner cases under peak network load, it may slightly modify block generation behavior across varying stake pool operator (SPO) hardware configurations.Final RecommendationVote: YESRationaleAs a representative committed to prioritizing user trust, security, and the long-term viability of the Cardano network, endorsing this Protocol Parameter Change is imperative. Cost models must stay aligned with actual machine performance to maintain a decentralized, secure, and highly scalable ecosystem. Delaying updates to the Plutus cost parameters stifles dApp evolution and limits throughput optimization. This parameter update brings technical adjustments that reduce resource overhead, thereby reinforcing blockchain accessibility and technical excellence. This governance action strengthens the broader Latin American Cardano ecosystem by directly lowering the barriers for local developers and builders. Decreasing relative execution costs ensures that regional startups, education-focused technical programs, and community-centric applications can deploy efficient smart contracts affordably, accelerating real-world web3 adoption across LatAm.
- Yes798.4K ₳Rationale
This is a low-controversy, technically justified protocol upgrade that enables new smart contract capabilities, improves consistency across Plutus versions, follows established benchmarking procedures, and strengthens Cardano's long-term developer platform without introducing obvious governance or treasury-allocation concerns.
- Yes794.5K ₳Rationale
I'm relying here on the expertise of the Intersect Parameter and Technical Steering Committees. If there is an issue with backward compatibility that requires resolution the community would appreciate an update from those teams.
- Yes717.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes652.1K ₳No rationale
- Abstain625.9K ₳Rationale
- Yes605.7K ₳Rationale
✅ MY VOTE IS YES
I vote YES on the Update Plutus Cost Models proposal.
This is a technical Cardano parameter update, not a Treasury withdrawal. This is not about conferences, marketing, or funding external events. This is about the core protocol and the way Plutus smart contracts work.
The idea is simple: Cardano is preparing for the van Rossem hard fork and the move to Protocol Version 11. After that, new Plutus functions will become available, and the network needs to know in advance how much CPU and memory these operations will cost.
In blockchain terms, this is close to a “gas model.”
If an operation exists, it needs a clear execution cost. Without that, smart contracts cannot properly use new functionality.The update includes:
— new cryptographic operations;
— array operations;
— list operations;
— token and value operations;
— updates for Plutus V1, V2, and V3;
— revised costs for some existing operations.As a DRep, this looks logical to me.
If Cardano wants to grow DeFi, dApps, cross-chain solutions, complex smart contracts, and stronger infrastructure, these updates are necessary. This is not spending for appearance. This is tuning the internal engine of the network.
It is also important that similar changes have already been tested on:
— SanchoNet — March 2026;
— Preview — April 2026;
— Preprod — May 2026.No specific security concerns are stated in the proposal. The cost values are based on benchmarking data. There are no negative cost values.
My position is clear:
if a proposal strengthens Cardano’s technical foundation, helps developers, and makes Plutus more functional, I support it.
My vote: YES.
Cardano must evolve not only through governance discussions, but also through real technical improvements to the protocol.
I registered as a DRep and I am ready to help shape the future of the ecosystem. I am optimistic about building the largest digital community in the world. 🖤 My DRep ID: ➡️ drep1y269ehxj30k4vfzfc2z84v0xykd3amuy2xn0kv9zf8rhcec2fg2jr More details here: https://t.me/PROCENT666/338
🚀 LEDGER COLD CRYPTO WALLET | METAMASK COURSE
https://edgarbagdasarian.justclick.ru/order/LEDGERMETAMASK🔥 CLOSED VIP CHAT PAID SUBSCRIPTION
https://t.me/MREDGARCROSS_BOT🌐 ALL COURSES AND LINKS
https://mredgarcross.com/📌 Note: This post is for informational and analytical purposes only. It does not contain calls for action, protest, or violation of the law. Everything stated here reflects the author’s personal opinion.
- Yes589.7K ₳Rationale
Approving the parameter change
- YesChanged587.6K ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain1mo agoSuperseded
- Yes545.4K ₳No rationale