{
  "@context": {
    "CIP100": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#",
    "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm",
    "body": {
      "@id": "CIP100:body",
      "@context": {
        "references": {
          "@id": "CIP100:references",
          "@container": "@set",
          "@context": {
            "GovernanceMetadata": "CIP100:GovernanceMetadataReference",
            "Other": "CIP100:OtherReference",
            "label": "CIP100:reference-label",
            "uri": "CIP100:reference-uri",
            "referenceHash": {
              "@id": "CIP100:referenceHash",
              "@context": {
                "hashDigest": "CIP100:hashDigest",
                "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm"
              }
            }
          }
        },
        "comment": "CIP100:comment",
        "externalUpdates": {
          "@id": "CIP100:externalUpdates",
          "@context": {
            "title": "CIP100:update-title",
            "uri": "CIP100:uri"
          }
        }
      }
    },
    "authors": {
      "@id": "CIP100:authors",
      "@container": "@set",
      "@context": {
        "name": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name",
        "witness": {
          "@id": "CIP100:witness",
          "@context": {
            "witnessAlgorithm": "CIP100:witnessAlgorithm",
            "publicKey": "CIP100:publicKey",
            "signature": "CIP100:signature"
          }
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "body": {
    "comment": "I’m honored to vote Yes on adopting this Constitution. It is my firm conviction that doing so is in the best interests of Cardano and our Community. \n\nThe very existence of this Constitution sets a new and objectively unprecedented standard for collaborative participation in blockchain governance — a standard for other blockchains to strive towards, and a target for this Community to exceed in future iterations. Over 1,400 people joined 63 open workshops across 51 countries to elect the representatives who, after months of collaboration, voted with 95% approval to endorse this Constitution. The call to participate in the crafting of this Constitution was an open one — and I’m thankful for all who answered it. Many brilliant people I’ve come to know and respect sacrificed their time, talents, and resources over the past decade so I can cast this vote today as a DRep. This Constitution is a tangible product of efforts to empower participants in shaping the future of Cardano and our Community, and this call continues. \n\nWhy I’m Voting Yes\n \nThis Constitution presents a considered framework for what lies ahead — above and beyond what the in-force Interim Constitution provides. Not present in the Interim Constitution, this Constitution:\n\n1. Provides for additional treasury safeguards\n2. Establishes a supply cap of 45 billion ADA\n3. Enhances governance actor transparency\n4. Anticipates periodic forums for Community members to consider amendments, and \n5. Adds Tenets that both guide the good faith decisions of governance actors and rally the Community to action when bad faith emerges\n\nIn contrast to characterizations of various provisions as unenforceable, blockchain Constitutions instantiate shared criteria that inform and rally individual voter inputs which, in aggregate, directly effect on-chain actions.\n \nThis Constitution is not perfect, nor was the process of forming it — yet those are not the standards by which I decide my vote today. Critically, this Constitution is updatable through amendment processes, ensuring that emergent challenges and potential improvements can be addressed by the Community in continued collaboration. \n \nIn my assessment as a DRep, the question at hand is which voting option best serves the interests of Cardano and our Community. For these reasons — this Constitution’s groundbreaking precedent in blockchain community governance collaboration; enhanced provisions exceeding those available in the Interim Constitution; and the recognition that perfection in substance and process is an iterative goal and not a barrier — I vote Yes.\n \nWhy Certain Objections Do Not Result In A No Vote\n \nParticipation and Process Objections\n\nI am familiar with arguments that cite widely held principles — that a Constitution should be formed through maximal participation and optimal process — as the basis for a No vote. While I hold the same underlying principles, I question whether the conclusion of voting No logically follows from that premise.\n \nIf maximal participation and optimal process are treated as decisive voting criteria here, then logically, a No vote does not follow. The objective effect of a No vote on this basis rejects a groundbreaking Constitution of significantly more participation and more optimal process in favor of continuing under an Interim Constitution that pales in both regards. \n\nFurthermore, a No vote predicated on the assumption that a future Constitution will arise to surpass the participation and process of this one presumes the outcome of undetermined future events without justification, ignores contrary possibilities, and must account for detrimental effects of an indeterminate interim period.   \n\nMore fundamentally, offering this argument to support a No vote now, when applied consistently, could not support a subsequent Yes vote on any Constitution unless a subjectively better process was undertaken with objectively greater quantitative and qualitative measures of participation. Any subsequent Yes vote would first necessitate exceeding this Constitution’s monumental extent of participation — an illusory prospect at this juncture.\n \nCertainly, a No vote citing these grounds may instead function to signal one’s high view of these principles to others, but I question whether doing so objectively advances or hinders these underlying principles. It seems apparent that voting No to signal one’s high view of said principles, where the effect of that vote fails to advance and even hinders the underlying principles, is a self-defeating proposition. If this voting methodology is adopted by a critical mass of DReps engaging in a competitive principle-signaling race to the bottom, our system of governance will be crippled by inaction and no more capable than the Web2-style forum it becomes.\n\nPersonal Objections\n \nLikewise, I do not vote based on how similar or different this Constitution is compared to what I would have drafted. This Constitution is the product of the contributions of hundreds of Community members who worked tirelessly to advocate their ideas and arrive at mutual consensus.\n\nCentralization Objections\n\nWhile I remain deeply concerned about the emergent and escalating trend of inter-branch and intra-branch centralization of power, I’m not convinced that additional prohibitive language alone would solve the problem at this time. A methodical appraisal of incentives — along with continued education for stakers, CC election voters, and governance actors — is warranted to promote decentralization within and among the three branches. The enhanced governance actor disclosure provisions of this Constitution (Article 6, Section 4 and Article 7, Section 9) enable more granular inter-branch centralization metrics to inform decisions on this critical topic.\n \nThe current composition of power in this governance bootstrapping phase does not preclude my Yes vote now, as it is not unprecedented compared with prior era bootstrapping of the network itself. As offered in my September 13, 2024 article, the present bootstrapping of governance decentralization, “like bootstrapping node decentralization in Byron, may entail a short-term compromise of the long-term goal at stake. Decentralization is a continuum, not a binary distinction. Just as Byron’s less decentralized bootstrapping of nodes necessarily preceded true decentralization through Shelley; so too might inter-branch centralization at the onset of Voltaire necessarily precede true decentralization of power between branches when practicable” (Cardano's 4th Governance Body — the Emergence of Inter-Branch Centralization, https://x.com/cardanoesq/status/1834517611100418207). \n\nIt is my continued belief that “individuals accepting the power and responsibility of multiple branches, but not each component branch’s express limitations” originally did so “primarily to help bootstrap governance, ensuring that enough DReps registered to protect the network.” At the same time, it remains true that “the good intent of those currently serving in multiple branches is immaterial — we’re setting foundational rules and norms.” The structure, composition, and function of our governance system is, by design, predicated on separation of powers. The individual, voluntary choice to circumvent this structure is an inherent conflict of interest, adverse to decentralized decision-making, and artificially lowers the consensus threshold required for governance actions — these adverse effects are not remedied by disclosure alone. The sole remedy is ceasing the circumvention.  \n \nI renew the call for those exercising power in multiple branches to soberly consider their personal criteria for a transition to serving in any one of three governance branches at a time, and for Community members to make staking and CC election decisions in line with their convictions. Apart from novel incentive structures and Community Members effecting this decentralization through staking and voting, the primary incentive for change by those exercising power in multiple branches is unilaterally sacrificing their own power, influence, and even financial interests for the long-term health, security, and resilience of Cardano and our Community.\n \nConcluding Thoughts\n \nI’m grateful to see DReps acting on their convictions to vote No, just as I am for those voting Yes. The published rationales of those voting No can be an especially useful resource — facilitating important conversations as we all endeavor to iterate upon and improve self-governance.\n \nIt’s been an honor to serve as a Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, on the Delegate Committee, and as a DRep.\n \nFor everyone who contributed to the monumental achievement this Constitution represents — whether you helped formulate CIP-1694 years ago or staked with a DRep today to participate in this vote — and no matter the ratification outcome, I encourage you to be proud of the work we accomplished together. Your entrance into the arena of self-governance — along with those who enter in the future — will not fail to elicit the criticism of others. When you encounter non-constructive criticism, recall that:\n\n “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”  - Theodore Roosevelt\n\nDRep Ken Ladd"
  },
  "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256"
}