rationale.jsonld

{
  "@context": {
    "@language": "en-us",
    "CIP100": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#",
    "CIP136": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0136/README.md#",
    "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm",
    "body": {
        "@id": "CIP136:body",
        "@context": {
            "references": {
                "@id": "CIP100:references",
                "@container": "@set",
                "@context": {
                    "GovernanceMetadata": "CIP100:GovernanceMetadataReference",
                    "Other": "CIP100:OtherReference",
                    "label": "CIP100:reference-label",
                    "uri": "CIP100:reference-uri",
                    "RelevantArticles": "CIP136:RelevantArticles"
                }
            },
            "summary": "CIP136:summary",
            "rationaleStatement": "CIP136:rationaleStatement",
            "precedentDiscussion": "CIP136:precedentDiscussion",
            "counterargumentDiscussion": "CIP136:counterargumentDiscussion",
            "conclusion": "CIP136:conclusion",
            "internalVote": {
                "@id": "CIP136:internalVote",
                "@container": "@set",
                "@context": {
                    "constitutional": "CIP136:constitutional",
                    "unconstitutional": "CIP136:unconstitutional",
                    "abstain": "CIP136:abstain",
                    "didNotVote": "CIP136:didNotVote"
                }
            }
        }
    },
    "authors": {
        "@id": "CIP100:authors",
        "@container": "@set",
        "@context": {
            "did": "@id",
            "name": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name",
            "witness": {
                "@id": "CIP100:witness",
                "@context": {
                    "witnessAlgorithm": "CIP100:witnessAlgorithm",
                    "publicKey": "CIP100:publicKey",
                    "signature": "CIP100:signature"
                }
            }
        }
    }
  },
  "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256",
  "body": {
    "summary": "The Intersect Council votes the proposed protocol parameter update unconstitutional due to missing rationale and without correct changes intended by the proposal.",
    "rationaleStatement": "**Understanding of facts**\n The protocol parameter change governance action is a proposal to modify plutus V3 cost models as per the title of the proposal “Plutus V3 Cost Model Parameter Changes Prior to Chang#2” however the rationale in the anchored file is no longer to be found. It is the Intersect Councils impression that due to an error the protocol changes were submitted on a node v9 and this meant that the node discarded proposed changes that would have been included with a node v10. Due to this error it was decided to remove the rationale to avoid confusion for votes on what proposal was the valid one to vote on. We also note that the proposal does not propose any network changes given this error.\n\n Rationale:\n The question is if a protocol parameter change proposal that is not as intended by the proposer is a constitutional proposal?\n\n Article 3 section 6 paragraph 2 reads that “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.”\n\n In this case the action proposed included cost model parameter changes while the version put on-chain would not be identical to the intended off-chain version. The Intersect Council believes that the intent of how the final off-chain version should look like matters for the interpretation of what is the final off-chain version. One of this paragraphs functions is to ensure that there is no mismatch between what is proposed and what ends up as the final off-chain version. Here in effect nothing is proposed due to a error and this is not matching the intent nor any changes in any off-chain version.\n\n Also due to the rationale being changed a question becomes if an on purpose removed rationale makes a proposal unconstitutional?\n\n Article 3 section 6 paragraph 1 reads that “Any governance action submitted to Ada holders for approval shall require a standardized and legible format including a URL and hash linked to documented off-chain content. Sufficient rationale shall be provided to justify the requested change to the Cardano Blockchain. The rationale shall include, at a minimum, a title, abstract, reason for the proposal, and relevant supporting materials.”\n\n In this case the documented off-chain content was removed. As in our understanding of the facts section this was likely done to remove confusion in what proposal to vote for. In general a removed off-chain document will likely make a proposal unconstitutional but there could be circumstances such as a last minute bug when the community had all read the supporting documents that could in theory make a proposal still valid. One of the intents of not having a change can be read in the last paragraph of the article: “All Ada holders shall have the right to ensure that the process for participating in, submitting and voting on governance actions is open and transparent and is protected from undue influence and manipulation.” A proposal for protocol parameter changes without supporting material for those changes are not sufficiently transparent and is unconstitutional. We also note this missing supporting material does not match the material that was socialized before the proposal.\n\n **A small note of independence**\n Due to this being the first time Intersect is submitting a governance action the Intersect Council notes we as a council will vote strictly based on the constitutionality of governance actions including those from Intersect. The Intersect Constitutional Council is a separate body from the Technical Steering Committee who requested this parameter change to be put forward.",
    "precedentDiscussion": "",
    "counterargumentDiscussion": "",
    "conclusion": "The Intersect Council votes the protocol parameter change unconstitutional due to missing rationale and changes not as the intent of the proposal.",
    "internalVote": {
      "constitutional": 0,
      "unconstitutional": 8,
      "abstain": 0,
      "didNotVote": 0
    }
  },
  "authors": []
}