This governance action proposes the adoption of Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution v2.4, replacing the current constitution. The proposal removes certain non-binding expectations and procedural mechanisms, introduces clearer definitions and terminology, enforces immutability of referenced proposal documents, and applies audit and accountability safeguards uniformly across all treasury withdrawals.
Assessment: Pass (with reservations)
Assessment: Mixed
Assessment: Medium
| Dimension | Score (1–5) |
|---|---|
| Constitutional clarity | 4 |
| Governance quality | 3 |
| Execution credibility | 4 |
| Ecosystem value | 3 |
| Risk balance | 2 |
This governance action proposes adoption of Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution v2.4. RCADA recognises that v2.4 contains several material improvements that strengthen governance integrity and treasury discipline, including clearer definitions and terminology, stronger audit and accountability safeguards applied uniformly across treasury withdrawals, and an important requirement that proposal documents referenced by URL remain immutable after submission. These changes address real weaknesses identified during early governance operation and represent a net technical improvement over prior versions.
However, RCADA is applying a high-bar amendment lens for constitutional changes, under which improvements in legal clarity must be accompanied by demonstrable gains in decentralization resilience, accountability, and governance quality in practice. Under this standard, a constitutional update must do more than streamline text or remove ambiguity; it must strengthen Cardano’s ability to resist capture, coordinate governance effectively, and maintain legitimacy over time.
While v2.4 improves enforceability, it also removes multiple non-binding “expectations” and “encouragement” clauses, as well as constitutional requirements related to governance conduct. RCADA is not convinced that removing these normative guardrails—without a clearly defined replacement path—strengthens Cardano’s long-term governance posture. Constitutions do not only define enforceable minimums; they also help shape institutional behaviour and shared expectations that support decentralization in practice. Eliminating these elements risks narrowing the Constitution to a purely transactional document, reducing its role in reinforcing governance culture and accountability norms.
RCADA is also cautious about the removal of the Budget Info Action mechanism. Consolidating requirements into Treasury Withdrawal actions may simplify governance flow, but it also reduces early-stage deliberation and strategic signalling. This change shifts more governance pressure onto high-stakes execution votes, increasing cognitive load on DReps and potentially reducing the quality of deliberation, particularly in the absence of explicit pacing, coordination, or replacement mechanisms anchored in the Constitution itself.
Additionally, RCADA notes that parts of the proposal rationale emphasise pragmatic reversions intended to secure broader stakeholder alignment. While broad alignment is often necessary for constitutional adoption, amendments should ultimately be justified by their objective contribution to governance quality rather than their likelihood of passage. This reinforces RCADA’s view that v2.4, while improved, should not be treated as final, and that future constitutional refinement should more directly address decentralization safeguards, amendment processes, and institutional accountability expectations.
While v2.4 represents a net technical improvement over prior versions, RCADA does not consider the remaining governance risks to be marginal or merely cosmetic at the constitutional level.
For these reasons, RCADA is choosing to Abstain.
This abstention is not opposition to governance maturation, nor a rejection of the improvements included in v2.4. Rather, it is a constructive signal that constitutional amendments should meet a higher standard than cleaner text alone: they should demonstrably strengthen decentralization, accountability, and long-term resilience, and where non-binding guardrails are removed, clear and socially anchored replacement mechanisms should be defined.
RCADA would welcome follow-up actions or supporting standards that clarify acceptable immutability practices for proposal documents, define a clear and community-legitimised constitutional amendment process, and ensure that the removal of normative clauses does not inadvertently weaken capture resistance or governance legitimacy over time.