Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
67 lines (53 loc) · 3.38 KB

gov_action1286ft23r7jem825s4l0y5rn8sgam0tz2ce04l7a38qmnhp3l9a6qqn850dw.md

File metadata and controls

67 lines (53 loc) · 3.38 KB

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

  1. ADASTAT Governance Explorer, https://adastat.net/governances/51f495aa23f4b3b3aa90afde4a0e67823bb7ac4ac65f5ffbb138373b863f2f7400
  2. 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]
  3. Interim Constitution, Article III, Section 6, https://github.com/IntersectMBO/interim-constitution/blob/75155526ce850118898bd5eacf460f5d68ceb083/cardano-constitution-0.txt#L200-L217