Cardano Foundation iCC Vote on Parameter Change Governance Action ‘Decrease Treasury Tax from 20% to 10%’
The Cardano Foundation has completed its constitutional assessment of the governance action #9 (Links: GovTool, Adastat, Cardanoscan) and deemed it to be unconstitutional.
Governance Action Title: Decrease Treasury Tax from 20% to 10%
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:
The proposal to reduce the treasury growth rate from 20% to 10% is unconstitutional because it lacks the required comprehensive technical review set forth in Article 3, Section 5, and a mandatory reversion plan, risking long-term treasury sustainability. Although the proposed rate falls within the acceptable quantitative range, essential procedural safeguards are not addressed.
I think we’ve got an ambiguity here. Article 3, Section 5 states that sufficient technical review should happen as mandated by the Guardrails, but the Guardrails don’t require this for the given parameter…
A better way would’ve been to consult and discuss with other ICC members to try clarifying this ambiguity first, instead of just interpreting it at your opinion and casting a vote saying it’s unconstitutional.
Please refer to Section 2.2 of the Guardrails Appendix, which outlines the objectives that any governance action involving economic parameter changes must address. The proposal under discussion has not provided substantial evidence or analysis to support the hypotheses detailed in its metadata, which violates the section you quoted in Article 3(5)
I would also like to emphasize that the iCC is committed to independently evaluating the constitutionality of governance actions, free from undue influence. Although we meet weekly to discuss and support one another, each member makes their own decisions.
In addition to the concerns noted in Article 3(5), there are other issues to consider, most notably the absence of the mandatory reversion/recovery plan specified in Appendix 1, Section 2.6.
(I’m a little underwhelmed by it in detail, but to judge this as “unconstitutional” seems over the top.)
2.6 doesn’t seem relevant at all for treasuryCut. It does not influence block propagation or “performance, security, functionality” since it is not related to the basic operation of the blockchain.
The only thing that could be argued to be half relevant is “long-term sustainability”. (Recovery plan would simply be “raise it again”, though.)
I agree with what Benjamin said above. You can always argue that there’s not enough evidence or analysis and block anything with that… That way, things will go the bureaucratic way very fast and we won’t be able to change anything…
That doesn’t mean you can’t discuss with each other before forming a final opinion and casting a vote.