{
  "@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"
          }
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "authors": [],
  "body": {
    "comment": "I am voting NO on the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution v2.3 proposal for many of the same reasons laid out in my previous vote on v2.0 which can be found at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hephy-io/mainnet/refs/heads/main/drep_rationales/GA063-constitution-v2.jsonld (or transaction hash: 8474b8633cde93e34da9ee905b30a79158ec4cd6e41f24656f24d43a5fca902c).\n\nIn a nutshell, I feel that it is too many changes at once and I would still like to see more representation. The Constitution is still not even 12 months old at this point and while it has provisions for amendments and is to be considered a “living document” I still find myself questioning at what point an amendment becomes a full-scale rewrite. It has taken some time for Cardano governance processes to find their feet and my concern is that such large-scale changes could lead to more confusion due to the number of changes. If any particular article or section is causing a common pain point for the Cardano governance process and/or ecosystem progress, submit an amendment to just fix that, work on one area at a time. Large scale rewrites risk things being missed or overlooked in order to satisfy one particular pain point elsewhere.\n\nI am also cautious regarding the approach whereby feedback is requested and urgent deadlines are given on social channels. I appreciate the desire to want to keep the conversation at the forefront of Cardano governance but putting time limits and rushing feedback in this manner with posts like, “I am still accepting feedback until MONTH DAY at HH:MM UTC”, almost makes this update process feel more personal rather than in the greater public interest. All ada holders should have the opportunity to have their voice heard and my concern is for those ada holders who are not active on social channels like X who may be being left out by this approach so far, despite the level of feedback that has been collected from active X accounts.\n\nI see that there is currently work underway on formalising a Constitutional Amendment process and I am more inclined to wait and see the outcomes of this endeavour before entertaining any further update constitution proposals with this number of changes."
  },
  "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256"
}