Governance

Anchor document

ipfs://QmNTVnzf7fv9Kc5VLXtx3FR1qeWig9EpPFtzpaPPew4x1H
Hash matches the chain Open original

This document doesn't follow CIP-108 or CIP-119, so there is nothing to lay out. The raw JSON is below.

Document

Hash (BLAKE2b-256)
6793c47665a35d39a914a74a766697dde325a6133b46b86201c0488b77f0c52d
Hash on chain
6793c47665a35d39a914a74a766697dde325a6133b46b86201c0488b77f0c52d
Fetched from
https://ipfs.blockfrost.dev/ipfs/QmNTVnzf7fv9Kc5VLXtx3FR1qeWig9EpPFtzpaPPew4x1H
Raw JSON-LD
{
  "@context": {
    "@language": "en-us",
    "CIP100": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#",
    "CIP129": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0129/README.md#",
    "CIP136": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0136/README.md#",
    "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm",
    "body": {
      "@id": "CIP136:body",
      "@context": {
        "govActionId": "CIP129:governance-action-identifiers",
        "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",
            "againstVote": "CIP136:againstVote"
          }
        }
      }
    },
    "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": {
    "govActionId": "gov_action1k02990lhw6wh74t7c6ufw3mqaek9ujtvyan99dj5qv5kvcs7pn8sxypfkyr",
    "summary": "Ok",
    "rationaleStatement": "The proposal funds the operational activities of Intersect's Technical Steering Committee, including protocol governance, parameter evaluation, CIP stewardship, hard fork coordination, independent technical review, and community-facing technical engagement. These activities support the effective operation of Cardano's technical governance framework and therefore present a reasonable case for advancing the long-term sustainability of Cardano under Article I - Section 1.\n\nThe proposal identifies an administrator, specifies independent audit and assurance arrangements through Appold, defines custody through dedicated treasury management smart contracts, provides milestone-based disbursement controls, clearly distinguishes work funded through this proposal from activities funded elsewhere, discloses previous Treasury funding received by Intersect and its committees, and states compliance with the applicable Net Change Limit.\n\nThe proposal characterizes the Technical Steering Committee as being fundamental to achieving progress across all Cardano 2030 strategy KPIs. While the Committee's contribution to governance and technical coordination is clearly established, this broader characterization is necessarily aspirational and is not fully demonstrated by the metadata. Nevertheless, I do not consider this sufficient to affect the constitutional assessment of the proposal.\n\nHence, I do not identify a clear constitutional violation and consider the proposal constitutionally compliant."
  }
}