Triweekly parameter committee meeting - August 21, 2025
These are the minutes of the PCs (Parameter Committee) triweekly meeting. This is a summary based on automatically generated notes and may therefore contain inaccuracies or errors.
The purpose of the Parameter Committee is to provide technical advice and recommendations relating to protocol parameters. It discusses all parameters relating to the Cardano protocol including network, technical, economic and governance parameters.
Summary
Kevin Hammond initiated the meeting, addressing carried-forward agenda items and new issues. Alexander Moser, Kevin Hammond, Jonathan Kelly, and Neil Davies discussed several key topics including the severity levels of parameter changes, the “Constitution guardrails,” MPC0 document creation, and the Parameter Committee’s involvement in CIP 50. Neil Davies suggested that CIP 50 proposers should provide a detailed economic analysis addressing potential downsides, and Alexander Moser proposed a strategy for documenting CIP 50 feedback. The participants also discussed the governance action deposit and the impact of parameter changes on network dynamics.
Details
- Meeting Agenda and Attendance Kevin Hammond initiated the meeting by suggesting a review of carried-forward agenda items and any new issues. Alexander Moser noted having no updates due to recent holidays and sickness. The discussion also included the absence of CC members, with Kevin stating that Nicola was expected to send the invite.
- Severity Levels of Parameter Changes Alexander Moser inquired about who defines the severity levels (1, 2, or 3) for parameter changes, suggesting it might be a TSC question. Kevin Hammond clarified that the Security Council typically handles this as part of their incident response and triage process, making it a pragmatic answer not requiring a constitutional definition.
- Constitution Guardrails Discussion Alexander Moser asked for an update on the “Constitution guardrails” discussion, specifically regarding ditching or editing them, and if anyone present had attended Sam’s discussions in Las Vegas. Jonathan Kelly confirmed they were not in Las Vegas, and Kevin Hammond suggested following up with Sam out of band.
- MPC0 Document Creation Alexander Moser proposed an asynchronous discussion for MPC0 and offered to lead the document creation, with Kevin Hammond agreeing to create the document for others to contribute to. Their goal is to consolidate everyone’s input into one response.
- Parameter Committee’s Involvement in CIP 50 Kevin Hammond, Alexander Moser, and Jonathan Kelly discussed the parameter committee’s role in CIP 50, which relates to adjusting the reward formula to link pledge with saturation levels. Kevin outlined three potential approaches: a coordinated committee response, encouraging individual responses, or non-involvement until it becomes a new parameter. Neil Davies emphasized the need for economic analysis for CIP 50, suggesting that without it, the committee cannot properly assess it.
- Economic Analysis and CIP Standalone Nature Neil Davies and Kevin Hammond debated whether CIPs should be standalone documents containing all necessary economic analysis. Kevin noted that different CIP developers have taken varied approaches, with some being self-contained and others not. Neil stressed that if the committee is to make informed comments, they need to understand the wider implications of parameter changes.
- Request for Proposers to Address Downsides of CIP 50 Neil Davies suggested that the CIP 50 proposers should provide a detailed economic analysis, including how the change might affect SPO behavior and potential downsides, rather than the committee having to initiate criticisms. Kevin Hammond agreed that a recommendation could be made to the proposers to address these aspects and the potential for increased centralization. Jonathan Kelly noted that the proposers appear convinced of their decision but may not have fully considered all consequences.
- Strategy for Documenting CIP 50 Feedback Alexander Moser proposed that Kevin Hammond create a document starting with questions similar to those in the FAQ section of CIP 50, inviting the authors to comment, which would allow the committee to provide informed input on the risks. Neil Davies supported this approach, as it allows the committee to drive the dialogue and ensures that potential downsides are considered.
- Governance Action Deposit and Crowdfunding Alexander Moser asked if the TSC would support a governance action deposit, given that TSC has no assets. Kevin Hammond agreed to raise this at the next TSC meeting to determine if Intersect funds could be used for such purposes. Jonathan Kelly mentioned a previous working group report that identified the need for a tool for crowdfunding deposits, but no such product is currently live.
- Impact of Parameter Changes on Network Dynamics Neil Davies and Kevin Hammond discussed the potential for parameter changes to cause permanent, undesirable shifts in network dynamics, such as 20% of pools shutting down, which cannot be simply reversed by adjusting the parameter. Neil acknowledged that while the network might desire some centralization to reach a target of 500 pools, it should not lead to funds flowing into a small number of large pools at the expense of decentralization and relay incentives.