Update Plutus Cost Models
5 of 7 committee members voted
- Ace Alliance71aa5b3a…8f04YesActive · term ends epoch 726Rationale
Ace Alliance finds the proposed "Update Plutus Cost Models" Protocol Parameter
Change Governance Action Constitutional. Rationales are archived at
https://github.com/ace-alliance/ace-voting/"Update Plutus Cost Models" is a Protocol Parameter Change governance action
submitted by Intersect's Parameter Committee that proposes to update thecostModelsprotocol parameter to accomplish three things: assign cost model
entries for thirteen new built-in Plutus primitives defined across CIP-0109,
CIP-0132, CIP-0133, CIP-0138, and CIP-0153, which become available following the
van Rossem hard fork to Protocol Version 11; extend several previously V3-only
primitives to Plutus V1 and V2; and revise benchmarked CPU cost settings forequalsByteStringacross all three language versions and for four
integer-division primitives (divideInteger,modInteger,quotientInteger,remainderInteger) in V3 only. New primitive entries activate only after
enactment of the PV11 hard fork; adjustments to existing primitives take effect
immediately upon enactment of this governance action. The benchmarking
underpinning the proposed values was performed by the IOE Plutus Core developer
team. IOE is the technical engineering division of IOG, the entity historically
most closely associated with Cardano's core development. We note this
relationship once and apply identical constitutional scrutiny regardless of
origin.Article II.6.1-2 (Governance Action Standards). The action anchors its
justification to an immutable IPFS document (anchor hash828cf92b170812446820c9f393446a2daf7d7e47d5f87354fe9f9e21a2635fb4). The
document provides a title, abstract, and substantive rationale including
technical evaluation, testnet deployment records, benchmarking references, and
an explicit guardrail compliance analysis authored by the proposer. It
references Intersect Parameter Committee meeting notes from 2026-03-05 and
2026-03-19, and TSC confirmation from 2026-05-13. The proposal satisfies the
format and rationale content standards of Article II.6.1 and II.6.2.Article II.6.3 (Technical Review Requirement). The Constitution requires
that "Parameter Update" actions "undergo sufficient technical review and
scrutiny as mandated by the Guardrails." This action documents a layered review
chain: recommendation by Intersect's Parameter Committee across two triweekly
meetings; confirmation by Intersect's Technical Steering Committee; and
sequential testnet deployment on SanchoNet (March 2026), Preview (April 2026),
and Preprod (May 2026), with an on-chain governance action identifier provided
for each. The multi-stage testnet track record constitutes sufficient technical
review under Article II.6.3.Appendix I.2 (PARAM Guardrails). PARAM-01 prohibits changes to any protocol
parameter not explicitly named in the constitution. ThecostModelsparameter
is explicitly named and governed under Appendix I.2.4. PARAM-01 is satisfied.
PARAM-02a applies to listed parameters that lack checkable guardrails; it does
not govern here because PCM-01 through PCM-04 provide specific guardrails for
cost models.Appendix I.2.4 (PCM-01 through PCM-04). PCM-01 requires cost model values to
be set by benchmarking on a reference architecture. The proposal states that all
settings were validated by the IOE Plutus Core developer team on the same
reference machine used for the existing mainnet cost models, and links to
publicly accessible GitHub Actions benchmarking results. This guardrail is not
checkable by the automated guardrails script (designated non-automated in the
constitution as "x/unquantifiable") but is addressed with sufficient specificity
on the face of the proposal. PCM-02 requires the cost model to be updated when
new primitives are introduced. Thirteen new built-in primitives become available
at the PV11 hard fork; PCM-02 not only permits this update but makes it
mandatory. PCM-03a requires that cost model values should not normally be
negative. The proposal states that none of the new cost model values is
negative, which we find accurate. We note that the V3 cost model diff includes a
negative intermediate polynomial coefficient ("c02": -900) within thequadratic_in_x_and_yformulas for the four integer-division primitives;
however, these formulas use theconst_above_diagonalmodel type, which
enforces a constant execution floor of 85,848 units regardless of intermediate
terms. No computed execution cost can be negative. The plain meaning of PCM-03a
governs execution-cost values, not polynomial coefficients, and the proposal's
representation is accurate. PCM-04 requires a cost model to be supplied for each
Plutus language version the protocol supports. The proposal provides cost model
diffs for V1, V2, and V3. All four guardrails are satisfied.Ace Alliance finds the proposed "Update Plutus Cost Models" Protocol Parameter
Change Governance Action Constitutional. - Cardano Curia84feba94…6bd5YesActive · term ends epoch 799Rationale
Cardano Curia finds the proposed "Update Plutus Cost Models" Protocol Parameter Change constitutional and votes YES.
Cardano Curia votes YES on the "Update Plutus Cost Models" Protocol Parameter Change governance action. The action updates the Plutus cost model entries to support new built-in primitives and revised benchmarked CPU cost settings. We classify this as a Protocol Parameter Change affecting the costModels parameter.
The relevant constitutional requirements are the Governance Action Standards for transparency, immutable supporting documentation, sufficient rationale, and technical review for Parameter Update actions. The relevant guardrails are the Plutus Cost Models guardrails, PCM-01 through PCM-04. These require cost model values to be benchmarked on a reference architecture, require the cost model to be updated when new primitives are introduced or a new Plutus language version is added, discourage normally negative cost model values unless justified, and require a cost model for each supported Plutus language version.
We find the action constitutional because costModels is an explicitly recognized protocol parameter; the proposal provides a substantive rationale and technical-review trail; the supplied rationale states that benchmarked values were produced by the IOE Plutus Core developer team; and the proposal provides cost model diffs for Plutus V1, V2, and V3. The update is also consistent with PCM-02 because new primitives require corresponding cost model coverage.
No constitutional conflict was identified. The action appears aligned with the Constitution's requirements for transparent, technically reviewed Parameter Update actions and does not appear, on the face of the provided rationale, to endanger the security, functionality, performance, or long-term sustainability of the Cardano Blockchain.
For the reasons above, Cardano Curia finds the proposed "Update Plutus Cost Models" Protocol Parameter Change constitutional and votes YES.
- Cardano Japan Council725d4d44…7b31YesExpired · term ends epoch 653Rationale
We consider this governance action to be constitutional.
This proposal is a Parameter Update Governance Action regarding “Update Plutus Cost Models” submitted by Intersect. The proposal text describes the addition of new Plutus primitives, ensuring consistency between Plutus V1, V2, and V3, updating the cost models of existing primitives, and supporting Protocol Version 11 (the van Rossem hard fork). Regarding Article 2, Section 6, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Cardano Constitution, this proposal adopts immutable off-chain references using IPFS. Furthermore, the proposal text details the objectives of the parameter update, technical evaluation, security, performance, sustainability, and consistency with Guardrails; we therefore determine that it presents information sufficient for evaluation as a Governance Action. Regarding Article 2, Section 6, Paragraph 3 of the Cardano Constitution, the main text of this proposal includes references to recommendations by the Intersect Parameter Committee, confirmation by the Intersect Technical Steering Committee (TSC), testnet deployment, security, performance, sustainability, alignment with Guardrails, and benchmark results. Furthermore, discussions regarding benchmarking methods, compatibility risks, risk mitigation measures, and notification plans can be confirmed in the meeting notes and TSC minutes referenced in the proposal text. Based on this, we determine that the sufficient technical review and scrutiny process required by the Cardano Constitution is in place. Additionally, no clear conflict with the Guardrails regarding Plutus Cost Models (costModels) in the Cardano Constitution was identified for this proposal. Regarding PCM-01, the proposal text states that this is a cost model update based on benchmark results, and an explanation of the benchmark methodology can be found in the meeting notes. Regarding PCM-02, the proposal text states that the cost model is being updated in conjunction with the introduction of new Plutus primitives and to ensure consistency between Plutus V1, V2, and V3. Regarding PCM-03a, we verified the cost model parameter changes referenced in the proposal text. Furthermore, the review process for the Plutus cost model update can be confirmed in the meeting notes. Regarding PCM-04, we confirmed that the proposal text lists cost_models corresponding to Plutus V1, V2, and V3. Therefore, as no clear conflict with the Cardano Constitution has been identified, we determine that this proposal is constitutional.
For the reasons stated above, we determine that it is constitutional.
- Phil_uplc68bb0b42…8746YesActive · term ends epoch 799Rationale
This proposal is constitutional as it doesn't violate any of the binary requirements set forth in the constitution.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
This proposal is constitutional as it doesn't violate any of the binary requirements set forth in the constitution.
- Tingvard646d1b3a…be43YesActive · term ends epoch 726Rationale
Tingvard judges the “Update Plutus Cost Models” governance action constitutional.
This governance action is properly framed as a Parameter Change action and must therefore be assessed under the applicable constitutional requirements for protocol parameter updates, together with the relevant guardrails for Plutus cost models.
The proposal satisfies Article II, Section 6, §1 by presenting the governance action in a standardized and legible format. It includes a title, abstract, motivation, rationale, supporting references, and the on-chain parameter change data.
The proposal satisfies Article II, Section 6, §2 by providing sufficient rationale for the requested parameter change. The action explains that the update is intended to enable new Plutus primitives following the van Rossem hard fork to Protocol Version 11, make Plutus primitives available across Plutus V1, V2, and V3, and update selected existing primitive settings based on benchmarking data.
The proposal identifies the technical basis for the change. It states that the changes were recommended by Intersect’s Parameter Committee, confirmed by Intersect’s Technical Steering Committee, enacted on SanchoNet, Preview, and Preprod testnets, and supported by benchmarking results.
The proposal addresses the relevant Plutus cost model guardrails. It states that PCM-01 is satisfied because the cost model settings were validated by the IOE Plutus Core developer team against the same reference machine and implementation as the existing mainnet Plutus cost model settings. It states that PCM-02 is satisfied because the cost model is being updated due to the introduction of new Plutus primitives following the upgrade to Protocol Version 11. It states that PCM-03 is satisfied because none of the new cost model values are negative.
The proposal also provides the affected primitive categories and the concrete cost model differences for Plutus V1, Plutus V2, and Plutus V3. This gives sufficient clarity as to what parameter values are being changed and why.
Tingvard therefore finds that the proposal satisfies the applicable constitutional requirements for a Parameter Change action.
Tingvard finds this governance action constitutional.
The proposal provides a clear parameter change, sufficient technical rationale, testnet and committee support, benchmarking basis, and explicit consistency with PCM-01, PCM-02, and PCM-03.
- Eastern Cardano Council4a822702…3d76Not votedActive · term ends epoch 726No rationale
- KtorZ64f97568…3a49Not votedExpired · term ends epoch 653No rationale