More Legal Framework for CIP-1694 & The Members Based Organization

I hate doing work for free so this may be the last time I do this but as requested by Jared Corduan in response to Here is a public version of drafted jurisdictional legal code and THE START OF trial procedure along with my original punitive charge legal code. I will make more of this if the community wants but right now I am tired. This will be for Voltaire. Anyone is welcome to comment. If you want more stuff like this, feel free to vote for me for CCV4. I imagine with the members based organization, the trial procedure can be modified to include jury’s which is why summary tribunals may be more community driven


1. Sources of catalyst jurisdiction

The sources of catalyst jurisdiction include the Cardano Foundation and Parameters set by Circle.

2. Exercise of catalyst jurisdiction

(a) Kinds . Catalyst jurisdiction is exercised by:

(1) The community in that the exercise of that branch of the municipal law which regulates its establishment

(2) A government temporarily governing the members of a population participating in a funding cycle.

(b) Agencies . The agencies through which catalyst jurisdiction is exercised include:

(1) Governance Actions for the trial of offenses against catalyst law and, in the case of a hearing, of persons who by the participation in catalyst are subject to trial by tribunal. See Parts ___, and __ of this Manual for rules governing tribunals.

(2) The Cardano Foundation and established courts for the trial of cases within their respective jurisdictions. Subject to any applicable rule of law or to any regulations prescribed by the members of Circle or by other competent authority.

(3) Courts of inquiry for the investigation of any matter referred to such court by competent authority.

See Article____. The party concerned may prescribe regulations governing courts of inquiry.

Nonjudicial punishment proceedings of circle under Article 1. See Part ____ of this Manual.

3. Nature and purpose of catalyst law

Catalyst law consists of the statutes governing the Cardano Foundation and entities established and regulations issued thereunder, the parameter powers of the Circle and regulations issued thereunder, and the inherent authority of elected members of Circle and non-elected members of the Cardano Foundation. Catalyst law includes jurisdiction exercised by tribunals and the jurisdiction exercised by Circle Members with respect to nonjudicial punishment. The purpose of Catalyst law is to promote justice, to assist in maintaining good order, morals, and ethics within catalyst, to promote efficiency and effectiveness within the Cardano Foundation and entities established within, and thereby to strengthen the security of the Cardano Block-chain.

4. Structure and application of the Manual for Tribunals

The Manual for Tribunals shall consist of this Preamble, the Rules for Tribunals, the Catalyst Rules of Evidence, the Punitive Articles, the Nonjudicial Punishment Procedures (Parts I-V), and Appendix A. This Manual shall be applied in a manner consistent with the purpose of catalyst law. The Cardano Foundation, in conjunction with the Circle, publishes supplementary materials to accompany the Manual for Tribunals. These materials consist of a Preface, a Table of Contents, Discussions, Appendices (other than Appendix A), and an Index. These supplementary materials do not have the force of law. The Manual shall be identified by the year in which it was printed; for example, “Manual for Tribunals, Cardano Foundation (20xx edition).” Any amendments to the Manual made by the Cardano Foundation shall be identified as “20xx” Amendments to the Manual for Tribunals, Cardano Foundation, “20xx” being the year the Order was issued by Circle and was signed by the Cardano Foundation. The Sub Circle of Legal Integrity on Catalyst Law reviews the Manual for Tribunals and proposes amendments to the Circle for consideration by the Cardano Foundation on a Quarterly basis. In conducting its annual review, the Sub Circle of Legal Integrity (SCLI) is guided by Parameter ______, “Role and Responsibilities of the Sub Circle of Legal Integrity (SCLI) on Catalyst Law.” Parameter _____ must include provisions allowing public participation in the Quarterly review process.




Rule 101. Scope, title

(a) In general. These rules govern the procedures and punishments in all tribunals and, whenever expressly provided, preliminary, supplementary, and appellate procedures and activities.

(b) Title. These rules may be known and cited as the Rules for Tribunals (R.C.T.).

Rule 102. Purpose and construction

(a) Purpose. These rules are intended to provide for the just determination of every proceeding relating to trial by tribunal.

(b) Construction. These rules shall be construed to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration, and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay.

Rule 103. Definitions and rules of construction

The following definitions and rules of construction apply throughout this Manual, unless otherwise expressly provided.

(1) “Appellate Foundation judge” means a judge of a Court of Criminal Appeals.

(2) “Article” refers to articles of the Uniform Code of Catalyst Law unless the context indicates otherwise.

(3) “Capital case” means a general tribunal to which a capital offense has been referred with an instruction that the case be treated as capital, and, in the case of a rehearing or new or other trial, for which offense banishment is authorized as a punishment under R.C.T. ____.

(4) “Capital offense” means an offense for which banishment is an authorized punishment under the UCCL and Part ____ of this Manual or under the law of the Cardano Foundation.

(5) “Circle Member” means a voted in governing member of circle or an appointed member in charge.

(6) “Convening authority” includes a member of Circle in charge for the time being and successors in charge.


See R.C.T. _____ concerning who may convene a tribunal.

(7) “Copy” means an accurate reproduction, how ever made. Whenever necessary and feasible, a copy may be made by handwriting.

(8) “Tribunal” includes, depending on the context:

(A) A Cardano Foundation member and a members of the Circle;

(B) A Cardano Foundation member when a session of a tribunal is conducted without members

under Article ___;

(C) A Cardano Foundation member when a request for trial by The Cardano Foundation alone has been approved under R.C.T. ____;

(D) A Cardano Foundation member when the case is referred as a special tribunal consisting of a Cardano Foundation member alone under Article ____; or

(E) The summary Cardano Foundation member as well as the community.

(9) “Days.” When a period of time is expressed in a number of days, the period shall be in calendar days,

unless otherwise specified. Unless otherwise specified, the date on which the period begins shall not count, but the date on which the period ends shall count as one day.

(10) “Delegate” means to order a person to perform a specific temporary duty, unless the context indicates otherwise.

(11) “Joint” in connection with a Cardano Foundation based organization connotes activities, operations, organizations, and the like in which elements of more than one military service of the same nation participate.

(12) “Members.” The members of a tribunal are the voting members detailed by the appointed Cardano Foundation member.

(13) “Cardano Foundation member” means a judge designated under Article ___ who is delegated under Article ___ or Article _____ to preside over a general or special tribunal or proceeding before referral. In the context of a summary tribunal, “Cardano Foundation member” means the summary tribunal Foundation member. In the context of a pre-referral proceeding or a special tribunal consisting of a Cardano Foundation member alone, “Cardano Foundation member” includes a Cardano Foundation member designated under Article ___ or Article _____.

(14) “Circle Member” means a Community Member certified under Article ___ who is performing duties under Article ___ or ___.

(15) “Party.” in the context of parties to a tribunal or other proceeding under these rules, means:

(A) The accused and any defense or associate or assistant defense counsel and agents of the defense counsel when acting on behalf of the accused with respect to the tribunal or proceeding in question; and

(B) Any trial or assistant trial counsel representing the Cardano Foundation, and agents of the trial counsel or

such counsel when acting on behalf of the Cardano Foundation with respect to the tribunal or proceeding in question.

(16)“Circle Advocate” means a advocate so designated in the Cardano Community and is the principal legal advisor for individual members of Circle.

(17) “Sua sponte ” means that the person involved acts on that person’s initiative, without the need for

a request, motion, or application.

(18) “UCCL” refers to the Uniform Code of Catalyst Law.



Article 1 (Project Catalyst)—Failure to obey order

Text of statute. Any person subject to this chapter who— (1) violates or fails to obey any lawful order or parameter; (2) having knowledge of any other lawful order or parameter issued by a member of circle or a sub-circle, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or (3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a trial by members of catalyst.


(1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful order or parameter. (a) That there was in effect a certain lawful order or parameter; (b) That the accused had a duty to obey it; and (c) That the accused violated or failed to obey the order or parameter.

Failure to obey other lawful order or parameter. (a) That a member of circle issued a certain lawful order or parameter; (b) That the accused had knowledge of the order; (c) That the accused had a duty to obey the order; and (d) That the accused failed to obey the order.

Dereliction in the performance of duties. (a) That the accused had certain duties; (b) That the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the duties; and (c) That the accused was (willfully) (through neglect or culpable inefficiency) derelict in the performance of those duties.


Violation of or failure to obey a lawful order or parameter.

Authority to issue general orders and regulations. Orders or parameters are those orders or parameters generally issued by members of circle or members of sub-circles which are properly published by the members of circle or the members of a sub-circle.

Effect of change of circle on validity of an election. A general order or parameter issued by a previous version of circle with authority under Article 1 retains its character as an order or parameter when another version of circle begins, until it expires by its own terms or is rescinded by separate action, even if it is issued by an impeached member of circle.

Lawfulness. An order or parameter is lawful unless it is contrary to the spirit of catalyst, the laws of the Cardano Foundation, or lawful superior orders from IOG or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.

(d) Knowledge. Knowledge of an order or parameter need not be alleged or proved as knowledge is not an element of this offense and a lack of knowledge does not constitute a defense.

(e) Enforceability. Not all provisions in orders or parameters can be enforced under Article 1 (1). Parameters which only supply general guidelines or advice for performing catalyst functions may not be enforceable under Article 1 (1).

(2.) Violation of or failure to obey other lawful order.

Scope. Article 1(2) includes all other lawful orders which may be issued by a member of Circle or a Sub-Circle, violations of which are not chargeable under Article 1. It includes the violation of written parameters which are not Circle parameters.

Knowledge. In order to be guilty of this offense, a person must have had actual knowledge of the order or regulation. Knowledge of the order may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(c) Duty to obey order. Failure to obey the lawful order of a Circle or Sub-Circle is an offense under Article 1(2), provided the accused had a duty to obey the order, such as one issued by a member of IOG.

(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties

Duty. A duty may be imposed by treaty, statute, regulation, lawful order, standard operating procedure, or custom of the Service.

Knowledge. Actual knowledge of duties may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Actual knowledge need not be shown if the individual reasonably should have known of the duties. This may be demonstrated by regulations, training or operating manuals, customs of the Service, academic literature or testimony, testimony of persons who have held similar or superior positions, or similar evidence.

Derelict. A person is derelict in the performance of duties when that person willfully or negligently fails to perform that person’s duties or when that person performs them in a culpably inefficient manner. “Willfully” means intentionally. It refers to the doing of an act knowingly and purposely, specifically intending the natural and probable consequences of the act. “Negligently” means an act or omission of a person who is under a duty to use due care which exhibits a lack of that degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances. Culpable inefficiency is inefficiency for which there is no reasonable or just excuse.

Ineptitude. A person is not derelict in the performance of duties if the failure to perform those duties is caused by ineptitude rather than by willfulness, negligence, or culpable inefficiency, and may not be charged under this article, or otherwise punished. For example, a recruit who has tried earnestly during rifle training and throughout record firing is not derelict in the performance of duties if the recruit fails to qualify with the weapon.

(e) Where the dereliction of duty resulted in grievous financial harm, the intent to cause grievous financial harm is not required.

D. Sample specifications

(1) Violation or failure to obey lawful order or parameter. In that __________ (personal jurisdiction data), did, (at/on board—location) (subject-matter jurisdiction data, if required), on or about _____ 20 , (violate) (fail to obey) a lawful general (order) (regulation) which was (his)(her) duty to obey, to wit: paragraph __ (Catalyst) (Order/Parameter), dated ), by (wrongfully_).

Violation or failure to obey other lawful written order or parameter. In that __________ (personal jurisdiction data), having knowledge of a lawful order issued by , to wit: (paragraph, (Catalyst) (Order/Parameter), dated),(________), an order which it was (his) (her) duty to obey, did, (at/location) (subject-matter jurisdiction data, if required), on or about _____ 20 __, fail to obey the same by (wrongfully) _______________________.


This has nothing to do with the draft CIP-1694. Jared’s request in the original PR comment was for:

continuing community input, including on appropriate threshold settings and other on-chain settings

… i.e. for technically oriented feedback. The content above is a centralised, authoritarian fantasy that would be better discussed on Reddit perhaps… or maybe a Cardano Forum topic not identified with CIP-1694.

1 Like

Not what I was referencing.

Private email communication.

I would appreciate if you elaborated on how this is authoritarian and I would also appreciate a solution that doesn’t involve lynching people like Dimitri Fernando through decentralized mob rule. A solution with some sort of fair order or process would be nice.

Thanks for establishing that: without this, it referenced the GitHub thread by default.

I’m not going to elaborate on how imposing privileged roles & applications of crime and punishment— on top of a system designed to be self-regulating through impersonal and automatically applied incentives— is authoritarian.

I don’t know anything about the personal issue you mention: but anything about a particular person, again, is outside the scope of CIP-1694 and in fact completely outside the scope of the CIP process itself. It may have bearing on discussion of MBOs or Catalyst but I’m not commenting about that.

Then please don’t make accusations of authoritarianism. I appreciate the willingness to participate but you have to be able to back up what you say and be involved enough in the topic/community to understand what is going on. This is not about a particular person. I simply used that as an example. This is governance.

Private email communication.

@Official_Jornlr did indeed send me an email, and I responded by thanking them for their enthusiasm with CIP-1694 and that I wanted to move the discussion to the open GitHub conversation. I’d be more than happy to post the emails here, but IANAL and I assume I’d need @Official_Jornlr 's agreement.

For the record, I do not wish to receive emails regarding CIP-1694, I wish to have the discussions in the open for the whole community to participate in.


FYI for participants (I’m posting this same comment in 3 somewhat related threads): In part due to the huge discussion around the draft CIP-1694 we’ve created a couple of channels to discuss Governance issues. Both channels linked here will also be suited to general considerations of Governance which may be off-topic to the GitHub discussion and/or the CIP process itself:

1 Like

Feel free to post our email communications!