For the Plomin Hard Fork, Stake Pool Operators (SPOs) should also consider the ecosystem readiness when voting on the Hard Fork Governance Action (GA).
Let me explain why I think this is important:
First, what do I mean by “ecosystem readiness”? It’s the overall preparedness of projects, tools, services, and community resources to handle the upcoming hard fork. This includes everything from wallet compatibility and developer tooling to important DApps and infrastructure. If critical parts of the ecosystem aren’t ready, it could lead to unexpected issues or hinder adoption right after the hard fork goes live. The Plomin Upgrade Readiness page by Intersect is the best resource for tracking ecosystem readiness.
Now, turning to Plomin itself: this is the first Cardano Hard Fork in the age of community-led governance, and also the first one not initiated by the genesis entities (Cardano Foundation, EMURGO, and IOG). Instead, it was submitted as a Hard Fork Initiation Governance Action. For this GA to pass, it needs two approvals:
- Two-thirds of the Interim Constitutional Committee (ICC) must approve its constitutionality.
- A 51% approval from SPOs as measured by the total active voting stake delegated to stake pools.
As of now, DReps can only vote on Info governance actions. DRep voting for all governance action types, including hard fork initiations, will only become available after a successful Plomin hard fork. So, let’s consider which of the two roles (SPOs and ICC) actually should factor in the ecosystem readiness when voting on the Plomin HF—and which documents apply.
First, looking at the ICC, some might argue that it’s the ICC’s responsibility to consider ecosystem readiness. However, the ICC is bound by the Interim Constitution or, more precisely, their interpretation of it. Their job is to check if the governance actions submitted on-chain “are consistent with this Interim Constitution” and that “on-chain governance actions before enactment on-chain, are constitutional,” as per Article 6(1).
To understand why they’re not required to focus on ecosystem readiness, let’s look at the relevant parts of the Interim Constitution—particularly Article 3(6). It lays out what each governance action must fulfill and highlights special considerations for the Hard Fork Initiation Action. Specifically, it says that all governance actions:
- Must include a URL and hash linking to a detailed rationale (with title, abstract, reason for proposal, and relevant supporting materials).
- Must maintain identical content on-chain and off-chain.
- Hard Fork Initiation and Protocol Parameter Changes must undergo sufficient technical review and scrutiny to ensure the proposal does not endanger the Cardano blockchain’s security, functionality, or performance. It should also address its expected impact on the Cardano Blockchain ecosystem.
Some might say that “ensuring that the GA does not endanger the security, functionality or performance of the Cardano Blockchain” covers ecosystem readiness. In my eyes, though, this section is more about the blockchain’s fundamental properties—keeping Cardano up and running—rather than a holistic check of whether all the different pieces of the ecosystem are truly ready. Under the Interim Constitution, the ICC’s role is to ensure that the proposed governance action does not break Cardano’s core operations and meets all the guardrails and requirements.
For the Plomin hard fork specifically, there are nine guardrails in play, ranging from INTERIM-01 to HARDFORK-01-08. Only HARDFORK-04 refers to a readiness metric—namely, at least 85% of stake pools by active stake must have upgraded to a node version that can process the new protocol rules. Beyond that, no other guardrails or metrics define whether or not the rest of the ecosystem (wallets, DApps, etc.) is prepared. As long as these guardrails and Article 3(6) requirements are met, the ICC doesn’t have a solid basis to claim unconstitutionality, even if the broader ecosystem isn’t completely ready. Doing so would exceed their mandate.
In my interpretation, that means the ICC is not allowed to consider ecosystem readiness. It’s not spelled out in the constitution, so the ICC can’t point to it as a requirement. Instead, the other party that votes on the Plomin hard fork—the Stake Pool Operators—could shoulder that responsibility.
Since DReps aren’t voting on this particular hard fork, it’s up to SPOs to decide if they want to consider ecosystem readiness. In practice, SPOs already signal their own readiness when they upgrade their nodes: if most SPOs upgrade, we can assume at least the node side is stable. However, readiness also means checking if critical DApps, DeFi platforms, exchanges, and community tools are up to date. Without a constitutional requirement for it, the decision to factor in broader readiness rests on the judgment of SPOs when casting their votes.
In the future, once the Plomin hard fork is active and DReps can vote on all governance actions, they, too, should consider the ecosystem readiness for future hard forks. It would make sense for the community to discuss defining precise readiness metrics, potentially defined in a CIP, so no single group has to guess whether the ecosystem is ready for a hard fork and we don’t end up in gridlock.
For the Plomin fork, I see it as SPOs’ responsibility to look beyond their own readiness and to think about how well-prepared the rest of Cardano’s ecosystem is before they vote. It’s one of the few chances we have in this particular governance cycle to ensure that, when the network upgrades, we’re not leaving essential tools or applications behind.