Governance

Anchor document

ipfs://Qmd6Mc1P9zQjG4Q51qMGFZyt2WKCBTY9bPAs7hp9qZ8GJt
Hash matches the chain Open original

Document

Hash (BLAKE2b-256)
e16d11120dcae3c107aebd6ad0fa67da2226994861cc48b19596bf58f24bcca2
Hash on chain
e16d11120dcae3c107aebd6ad0fa67da2226994861cc48b19596bf58f24bcca2
Fetched from
https://ipfs.blockfrost.dev/ipfs/Qmd6Mc1P9zQjG4Q51qMGFZyt2WKCBTY9bPAs7hp9qZ8GJt
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_action1k02990lhw6wh74t7c6ufw3mqaek9ujtvyan99dj5qv5kvcs7pn8s24l0u4y",
    "summary": "Voting YES. Mithril is live, open-source infrastructure enabling light clients and trustless state verification. Proven team transitioning from IOG to Treasury. Budget opacity and vague scope are real — underlying value isn't in question.",
    "rationaleStatement": "A [PDF version][pdf-link] of this rationale is also made available.\n\n[pdf-link]: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmabXzSPG38NBgBfVHP7Ljp298RJtJGn2biKnecqCB6HNR\n\nVoting yes. With some real concerns about how this proposal was packaged, concerns that are proportionate to the ask. A ₳3.8M treasury withdrawal deserves more than two budget line items, a volatility policy, visible milestones, and a defined scope of work. Those gaps are genuine, and I expect them to close in future funding rounds.\nThey don't change the underlying vote because Mithril's value is already demonstrable. This is working, open-source infrastructure. The repositories are public, the protocol is operational, and the decentralization benefits are already real: light clients can verify Cardano chain state without trusting centralized intermediaries, full nodes sync faster, and exchanges and wallets can operate with substantially lower infrastructure overhead. The proposal asks the Treasury to sustain and continue something that works and is integral to a competitive tech stack.\nTeragone has years of demonstrated Mithril delivery through IOG collaboration. As part of the IOG-to-Treasury transition this is something I want to support because it is structurally correct: as Cardano matures, core protocol infrastructure should sit under community governance rather than single-entity funding. This proposal moves it in that direction.\nThe transparency gaps are failures of how the proposal was packaged, not failures of what the proposal is for. I vote yes with the expectation that future Teragone submissions include itemized budgets, a published milestone schedule, an ADA volatility policy, and a defined roadmap for the funded period.",
    "references": [
      {
        "@type": "Other",
        "label": "Rationale PDF",
        "uri": "ipfs://QmabXzSPG38NBgBfVHP7Ljp298RJtJGn2biKnecqCB6HNR"
      }
    ]
  }
}