Cardano Foundation iCC Vote on Info Governance Action ‘Tempo for Cardono Governance - Maintenance & Development Budget for 2025’
The Cardano Foundation has completed its constitutional assessment of the governance action #21 (Links: GovTool, Adastat, Cardanoscan) and deemed it to be unconstitutional.
-
Governance Action Title: Tempo for Cardono Governance - Maintenance & Development Budget for 2025
-
Governance Action ID: gov_action1f9da8n2yaf4updxzmwc7fnw8ug2gwnpvqays5n3yw6nz0mu3z2qqq6ggge9
-
Vote Transaction: Cardanoscan
As a member of the Interim Constitutional Committee (iCC), we are responsible for reviewing the constitutionality of all governance actions submitted to the blockchain.
For a detailed explanation of our assessment, please refer to our full rationale available in the following PDF hosted via IPFS:
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmRQU9kj2Dpzb9NKkjpkHBkjrzZNQEtE6dvFkJW4Jzo7Lh
Rationale Summary:
The proposed Info Governance Action “Tempo for Cardono Governance - Maintenance & Development Budget for 2025” is unconstitutional.
1 Like
I’m getting “gateway timeout” or “no providers found” for this CID… @Nicolas I would appreciate your posting the full rationale here if that is not prohibited for some reason. 
1 Like
Vote Rationale This document is automatically generated from the CIP-0136 JSON file attached to the vote. Governance Action ID: gov_action1f9da8n2yaf4updxzmwc7fnw8ug2gwnpvqays5n3yw6nz0mu3z2qqq6ggge9 Summary The proposed Info Governance Action “Tempo for Cardono Governance - Maintenance & Development Budget for 2025” is unconstitutional. Rationale Statement This Info Governance Action (gov_action1f9da8n2yaf4updxzmwc7fnw8ug2gwnpvqays5n3yw6nz0mu3z2qqq6ggge9) proposes a budget of 380,000 ada for the Tempo.vote platform. While its stated purpose of improving governance accessibility is noted, the proposal fails to meet specific constitutional requirements necessary for the accountable and transparent management of treasury funds. Constitutional Alignment A review of the governance actions against the Cardano Constitution has found that the proposal does not align with several constitutional provisions: 1. Article III, Section 5 (Insufficient Information & Supporting Materials): This section requires that a proposal “shall include, at a minimum, a title, abstract, reason for the proposal, and relevant supporting materials” to provide sufficient information to justify the requested action. The information submitted—considered in its entirety—must enable reviewers and voters to independently assess the proposal and form an informed and reasoned opinion on it. The supporting materials are essential to substantiate the rationale and implications of a proposal. As such, they must form an integral part of the proposal’s core body and must be appropriately included in its metadata to ensure transparency and evaluability. The presented proposal lacks any linked supporting materials, such as a detailed budget breakdown, project roadmap, or team information. Essential details regarding the administrative process, dispute resolution, and fund handling are not included in the proposal but are located on the administrator’s website ( selfdriven | Services ). Such critical information must be clearly and directly presented as part of the proposal, not left for reviewers to discover externally. This proposal therefore does not meet the constitutional requirements as per Article III, Section 5 and specifically fails to provide “sufficient information” to justify the budget. 2. Article IV, Section 2 (Lack of a Specified Oversight Process): This article mandates that budgets “shall specify a process for overseeing use of funds […] including designating one or more administrators”. The proposal itself does not specify this process. While the linked administrator’s website outlines a service offering, the proposal fails to formally adopt, reference, or integrate this as the specific process for this budget. This omission leaves the commitment to a specific oversight framework ambiguous and constitutionally non-compliant. Conclusion Due to non-compliance with constitutional provisions under Articles III and IV, this Info Governance Action is Unconstitutional. Internal Vote • Constitutional: 0 • Unconstitutional: 6 • Abstain: 0 • Did not vote: 1 • Against vote: 0 References • RelevantArticles: Cardano Constitution • GovernanceMetadata: Metadata Anchor URL • GovernanceMetadata: Metadata Anchor Hash • Other: Tempo.vote budget administrator website • Other: Tempo.vote platform
1 Like
thanks; it worked immediately & on the first try; I’ll make a note of that gateway 
1 Like