gov_action1286ft23r7jem825s4l0y5rn8sgam0tz2ce04l7a38qmnhp3l9a6qqn850dw
Action Identifier
gov_action1286ft23r7jem825s4l0y5rn8sgam0tz2ce04l7a38qmnhp3l9a6qqn850dw [1]
Atlantic Council Vote Results
| Vote |
Tally |
| Constitutional |
0 |
| Unconstitutional |
6 |
| Abstain |
0 |
| Did Not Vote |
0 |
Supporting Rationale
We find this governance action, as proposed, to be unconstitutional. Due to an
unforeseen issue with the submission of the governance action [2] this
action does not propose any changes to the network parameters which is in direct
conflict to its stated goal of modifying Plutus v3 Cost Models. This is in
conflict with Article III, Section 6, Paragraph 2 and 3 [3] of the Interim
Cardano Constitution which state:
Any governance action proposal reaching the on-chain governance stage shall
be identical in content as to the final off-chain version of such
governance action proposal.
Hard Fork Initiation and Protocol Parameter Change governance actions should
undergo sufficient technical review and scrutiny as mandated by the Cardano
Blockchain Guardrails to ensure that the governance action does not endanger
the security, functionality or performance of the Cardano Blockchain.
Governance actions should address their expected impact on the Cardano
Blockchain ecosystem.
— Interim Cardano Constitution, Article III, Section 6, Paragraph 2 & 3
Because the published action does not match the circulated and socialized intent
or outcomes in the off-chain version, we must find this proposal to be
Unconstitutional.
Dissenting Rationale
N/A
Considerations
- The authors of the governance action changed the file contents of the proposal
metadata after realizing their error. This means that the published file does
not currently hash and match that published on-chain via the anchor
information [3: Article III, Section 6, Paragraph 1]. However, given that
a mutable (HTTPS) link was provided in the governance action, the metadata
file could be restored at a later date. This situation could create
unnecessary uncertainty and doubt.
- If it doesn’t change any parameters, should we ignore it, abstain, or consider
it Constitutional? All protocol parameter changes must build on the previous
state (hash) of governance, seemingly innocuous proposals such as this can
cause unnecessary confusion and conflicts to arise with downstream proposals.
References
- ADASTAT Governance
Explorer, https://adastat.net/governances/51f495aa23f4b3b3aa90afde4a0e67823bb7ac4ac65f5ffbb138373b863f2f7400
- Oops! What’s up with governance action
51f4…74#0?, https://cardanoupgrades.docs.intersectmbo.org/chang-upgrade-2/chang-upgrade-2-governance-action-faq [IPFS Backup]
- Interim Constitution, Article III, Section
6, https://github.com/IntersectMBO/interim-constitution/blob/75155526ce850118898bd5eacf460f5d68ceb083/cardano-constitution-0.txt#L200-L217