[CF-GA05-RATIONALE] Plutus V3 Cost Model Parameter Changes Prior to Chang#2

Governance Constitutional Committee
,
1

Cardano Foundation iCC Vote on Parameter Change Governance Action ‘Plutus V3 Cost Model Parameter Changes Prior to Chang#2’

The Cardano Foundation has completed its constitutional assessment of the governance action #5 (Links: GovTool, Adastat) and deemed it to be constitutional.

  • Governance Action Title: Plutus V3 Cost Model Parameter Changes Prior to Chang#2"
  • Governance Action ID: gov_action1k2jertppnnndejjcglszfqq4yzw8evzrd2nt66rr6rqlz54xp0zsq05ecsn)
  • Transaction Details: 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/QmUMCK6yLwLXPFMAFM19vjrFpyr2ChZSmYRDGJ8LMtXCXF

Rationale Summary:
The governance action proposing to update the Plutus V3 Cost Model is constitutional. It adheres to Article III, Section 6 of the Interim Constitution and complies with all relevant guardrails. This action enables new Plutus primitives without violating any constitutional provisions. Therefore, the Cardano Foundation, as an Interim Constitutional Committee (iCC) member, deems this action constitutional.

This vote solely assesses the constitutionality of the action and does not indicate support or express any opinion regarding the underlying proposal. Voicing an opinion is the duty of the Delegated Representatives (DReps) and Stake Pool Operators (SPOs) and remains outside the scope of the iCC.

2

In this case (hopefully one of the last ones), this is a problem because dReps and SPOs cannot vote on this governance action. SPOs not because it’s not a “security-relevant protocol parameter” and dReps not because we are before the Plomin hard fork.

So, in this case, the ICC are the only ones voting on it. Maybe, there should therefore have been a consideration of the content? (Although, I don’t really think that these changes are really problematic.)