{
  "@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 vote ABSTAIN on the Update Committee action \"Update Constitutional Committee 2026\" (729daaf2f9f89f842a61f6e3ebf7e57d16d6fa4116e29c13114780cb39090850#0).\n\nI recognise the importance of this Update Committee governance action for the continuation of Cardano governance. Without updating the 4 expiring seats, the Constitutional Committee will fall below the committeeMinSize of 5 and governance will effectively stall. However, I cannot in good conscience endorse this slate of candidates and so opt to \"abstain\" rather than vote \"no\" outright.\n\nThe Constitutional Committee has one job, to assess governance actions against the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution and evaluate whether or not it complies. Unfortunately, two of the candidates put forth on this action have demonstrated both poor participation and failures to uphold the Cardano Constitution correctly.\n\nWhen considering completed governance actions only, two candidates on this action have the lowest two participation rates of all existing CC members and even when compared to all-time CC members, they both still rank in the bottom three (Source: https://www.civitasexplorer.com/committee).\n\n> **Article II, Section 7(6)**\n> *Any ada received from a Cardano Blockchain treasury withdrawal, so long as such ada is being held by an administrator prior to further disbursement to the Treasury Withdrawal Recipient, must be kept in one or more separate accounts that can be audited by the Cardano Community, and such accounts shall not be delegated to an SPO but must be delegated to the predefined abstain voting option.*\n\nSecondly, both have demonstrated instances where Article II, Section 7(6) violations were voted \"Constitutional\" at the time the action expired. Both of them on [\"Global Order Book connect Cardano DeFi to increase transaction\"](https://adastat.net/governances/c0660dfd01b0a2d9ba7bac02014370096242ec756031b57d78080844fbbe9c0500) and one of them on [\"[OriLife × TonFarm] Identifying 180 Million Durians Without Physical Labels\"](https://adastat.net/governances/2f583d8efb7a01da81df432f561a5a9bb2f5749555cea3e19d5097a9bfb06b5200). These were actions where the treasury withdrawal addresses were delegated to both an SPO and a DRep and therefore in violation of Article II, Section 7(6). This is not some question of interpretation; it is black and white. Yes, the proposer can amend their delegation certificates at any time, in which case the CC member should be ready to amend their position. Deeming the proposals constitutional \"just in case\" the proposer should update their delegations correctly ahead of expiry and not changing the vote to unconstitutional when they failed to do so before expiry or ratification is frankly irresponsible. Especially since one of the most commonly cited rationales by one of these CC members is;\n\n> \"This doesn't violate any binary criteria of the constitution; thus I consider it constitutional.\"\n\nThey literally did \"violate the binary criteria of the constitution\".\n\nIt's time we stopped treating the Constitutional Committee like a popularity contest and start voting for people based on their merits.\n\nAdditionally, only 37 DReps participated in the [Hydra Voting](https://intersect.ekklesia.vote/ballots/6a3ff13334b52f591a6b4f3d/proposals/6a3ff13334b52f591a6b4f3e/results) platform accounting for 2.3 billion ada in voting power. However, 2 of those DReps were Yoroi and Emurgo whose massive voting power undoubtedly influenced the outcome of the vote. They have been progressively stepping back from the ecosystem since the SecondFI incident; first from the Intersect board, now announcing a retirement of their DReps - who have predominantly voted abstain recently, with the exception of the AlphaGrowth proposal. It was absurd to see them attempt to abstain on this vote too, having influenced the outcome of the Hydra Voting phase of the election. It is reassuring at least to see that they have since changed their vote to yes, reaffirming their previous position during the Hydra Voting phase. Anything other than a yes here from them would have thrown the whole process into disrepute given the size of their voting power."
  },
  "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256"
}