blake2b-256
We have determined that this Info governance action is unconstitutional.
Article III, Section 1(2) of the Cardano Constitution states "The CC shall be limited to voting on the constitutionality of governance actions, including any proposed or contemplated actions contained within "Info" actions." The governance action with ID "gov_action1a95na44kgedjk3k64ajpfp4p9d9jj3sgzc6tt9nmnkvgj7c9nraqq7g4d2u" and title "Cardano Budget Process Framework (facilitated by Intersect)", is an Info governance action, so should be assessed for constitutionality. The "Motivation" section of this Info governance action states "The Cardano governance system can benefit from a consistent and transparent framework to manage Treasury budgeting. Publishing this information ensures that all governance participants—including proposers, DReps, operational teams, and the wider community—navigate from a shared, authoritative reference." This implies that all treasury withdrawals should be processed through this framework ("ensures that all governance participants"). While the Cardano on-chain protocol will technically permit someone to bypass this, by formalising it as an Info governance action, DReps will likely reject proposals that do not follow it. We have already seen an example of this, where DReps are appealing to the 2030 Vision Info governance action when rejecting proposals they believe don’t comply with it, rather than rejecting it on its merits. Article II, Section 1(1) guarantees that no formal membership shall be required to participate in the Cardano Blockchain. While the proposed framework stops short of requiring formal membership, it imposes substantive compliance requirements, mandatory alignment with the 2030 Vision and structured data submissions that function as conditions of participation. A proposer who cannot or will not comply with these requirements will face DRep rejection not on the merits of their proposal, but on procedural non-conformance. This creates a de facto barrier to participation that violates the access guarantee Article II, Section 1(1) is designed to protect. Further, under "Stage 1, Core Proposal Data Requirements" of this Info governance action it states that "the Budget Template requires vendors to submit structured data in three key areas" that relate to the 2030 vision and strategy. By mandating certain information be supplied, proposals are not able to be assessed impartially on their merits. Article II, Section 4 vests voting power in DReps. By pre-conditioning proposal eligibility on 2030 Vision alignment, this framework transfers that evaluative authority to the framework designers, constraining DRep discretion in a manner the Constitution does not permit. However, TENET 9 requires fair and impartial treatment of all users. The framework systematically disadvantages proposers whose work does not align with the 2030 Vision, regardless of its technical merit or community benefit, creating a structurally biased evaluation process. Due to the constitution misalignments identified above, we find this governance action **Unconstitutional**.
None
This governance action breaches tenets or guardrails in the Cardano Constitution, so is deemed unconstitutional.
Eastern Cardano Council