Should K increased?

Summary

The info action “Should K increased?” is not constitutional due to not having sufficient rationale to justify the action.

Rationale Statement

Understanding of facts

The format of the proposal It is an info action per technical standards of CIP-1694 and article 3 section 5 of the Interim Constitution.

Regarding the wording of K-parameter While the K parameter has long-been discussed amongst the Cardano community, it should be noted that the particular parameter to which it historically referred is now officially known as stakePoolTargetNum within the Interim Constitution guardrails section (Appendix I: Section 2.4). While this in itself may or may not affect the constitutionality of the info action, it does raise an educational opportunity. “stakePoolTargetNum” is a more accessible parameter name for wider ecosystem participants to understand rather than the previous vagueness of “K”, and it also raises the importance of the accurate usage of parameter names in any future governance action.

The info action as the Intersect Council understands it The info action informs of the proposer's understanding of the K and a0 parameter. It is stated to “by no means a suggestion of what Cardano protocol parameters should be modified to or if they should be modified at this time. The goal of this governance action is to increase governance participation before the next hardfork”. However the title of the proposal is a question if K should be increased: “Should K increased?”. The Intersect Council interprets this to be that the proposal does not state what specifically it should be changed into or if it needs to be modified at this time, but that as the title says, the info action raises the question if K should be increased and that is the subject of the community poll.

The supporting material is not sufficient Article 6 section 3 covers any governance action submitted to Ada holders for approval and has standards in terms of sufficient rationale to justify “requested change to the Cardano Blockchain” and with a minimum a title, abstract, reason for the proposal, and relevant supporting materials. In this case the info action asks “Should K increased?” does not include sufficient relevant supporting material per the opinion of the Intersect Council as the provided supporting material is A) a link to Atrium labs that is not sufficiently relevant, B) a link to a video by Atrium Labs in relation to Cardano governance that is not sufficiently relevant and C) an educational post on what is cryptocurrency by Atrium Labs that is not sufficiently relevant. The info action itself gives a short description of K without going into any details of how an increase of K (as per the title of the proposal) would affect the Cardano blockchain, and seems more relevant for promoting Atrium Labs, than for informing the voters on the community poll question to a sufficient degree.

Rationale:

Does the info action fulfill the requirements in the constitution? The action is an info action gauging sentiment. In this case in regards to governance participation and related to K and a0, so it fulfills the requirements in article 3 section 5 of being an info action for community sentiment gauging.

The info action only partially fulfills the standards in article 3 section 6 for all governance actions. It is in a standardized and legible format and includes a url and a hash linked to a document off-chain. However, the supporting material is not relevant and not sufficient for the question asked in the community sentiment poll.

Given that the info action only partially fulfills the requirements in article 3 section 6 it is not constitutional.

The Intersect Council notes we only vote on the constitutionality of the rationale not being sufficient, and have not supported or gone against any increase or decrease in K(stakePoolTargetNum).

A discussion of the intent of info actions and standards related to info actions being tools for community sentiment As discussed in the Intersect Councils rationale for governance action 15f82a365bdee483a4b03873a40d3829cc88c048ff3703e11bd01dd9e035c916#0 (Hosky HF) the Intersect Council believes there are minimum standards to info actions. To quote our previous rationale: “For example one could risk not upholding the standards in article 3 section 6 of governance if the council abstained from voting on the constitutionality of info actions that were purely commercial advertisements without any rationale, and especially so if there were multiple such info actions making it harder for the community to read and digest community sentiment gauging info actions.”

We believe by ensuring that info actions have sufficient rationales and are not seen as pure commercial advertisements we ensure the integrity of the info action as a community sentiment gauging tool and that in turn promotes effective governance. The Intersect Council also share the sentiment of the Cardano Foundations rationale in their no vote on the action 7fd6429add8f2611ad8d48c0cc49101463093aec285faea402e8cfde78ea58d7#0 (“Should K increased?”) where they highlight article 1 section 1 to uphold transparency, openness and responsible governance and that the lack of relevant supporting material and the potential promotional nature of the proposal does not align with responsible governance practice.

The Intersect Council would also highlight the opportunity for the community to refine info actions as community sentiment gauges with off-chain discussions in the various tools online before submitting for the entire Cardano community on-chain. By promoting a culture of such discussions we ensure that on-chain governance is transparent and where community sentiment is done at a stage when the community is informed on a topic thus promoting effective governance. Polls related to changing protocol parameters should at a minimum have a discussion of what the proposer believes would be the effect of the proposed change or range of changes proposed.

Conclusion

The info action “Should K increased?” is not constitutional.

Internal Vote

• Constitutional: 0

• Unconstitutional: 7

• Abstain: 0

• Did Not Vote: 0