The Cardano Constitution

Governance Framework | Educational Reference

The Cardano Constitution establishes the principles, rights, responsibilities, and safeguards that guide the governance of the Cardano blockchain ecosystem. It provides a common framework for evaluating governance actions, protecting the network’s continuity, and enabling its participants to collectively determine how Cardano evolves.

First ratified in February 2025, the Constitution replaced an interim framework established during Cardano’s transition to on-chain governance. It has since been amended through community voting, demonstrating that the document itself is subject to the governance processes it establishes.

The current version was enacted in epoch 609, on January 24, 2026.

The complete and current constitutional text, including its technical appendices and ratification history, is available at cardano.org/constitution.

1. What Is the Cardano Constitution?

The Cardano Constitution is the ecosystem’s foundational governance document. It establishes the principles under which the blockchain should operate, recognizes the participation rights of ADA owners, defines responsibilities for governance actors, and places restrictions on certain governance decisions.

Its purpose extends beyond establishing voting procedures. It addresses how the blockchain should remain secure, accessible, sustainable, and responsive to its community while allowing changes to its technical parameters, governance institutions, and Treasury arrangements.

The Constitution operates alongside CIP-1694, which introduced Cardano’s on-chain governance framework. CIP-1694 describes the governance mechanisms implemented by the protocol, including governance actions and the respective voting roles of Delegated Representatives (DReps), Stake Pool Operators (SPOs), and the Constitutional Committee (CC).

The Constitution provides an additional layer of principles, obligations, and restrictions governing how these mechanisms should be exercised.

An important distinction is that not every constitutional provision is automatically enforced by blockchain software. Some restrictions are implemented through protocol rules or scripts, while others depend on human interpretation, evaluation, and institutional accountability.

2. Constitutional Structure

The Constitution consists of a preamble, defined terms, four articles, and two appendices.

Component	Main subject
Preamble	The Constitution’s purpose, shared principles, and commitment to community self-governance.
Defined Terms	Formal definitions of important governance concepts and participants.
Article I - Blockchain Tenets and Guardrails	Fundamental principles governing Cardano’s operation and the implementation of safeguards.
Article II - Community and Governance	Participation rights, governance actors, decision-making responsibilities, and standards for governance actions.
Article III - Constitutional Committee	The Committee’s constitutional role, composition, voting, transparency, and conduct.
Article IV - Amendment Process	Requirements for adopting constitutional changes.
Appendix I - Blockchain Guardrails	Technical, economic, security, and governance restrictions applicable to different governance actions.
Appendix II - Supporting Guidance	Additional context for interpreting the Constitution and its intended purpose.

The four articles establish the main constitutional framework. The appendices provide additional detail, particularly regarding the operational restrictions applicable to changes in the blockchain.

Appendix I is especially extensive, covering matters such as protocol parameters, voting thresholds, Treasury withdrawals, hard forks, and network performance requirements.

Readers seeking exact requirements should consult the relevant constitutional provision rather than relying solely on summaries.

3. Constitutional Principles and Safeguards

Fundamental principles

Article I establishes ten guiding tenets. These address several essential characteristics of Cardano, including resistance to transaction censorship, predictable transaction costs, accessibility for application developers, interoperability, preservation of assets and information, efficient resource use, and fair treatment of network participants.

They also establish monetary principles, including Cardano’s maximum supply of 45 billion ADA.

These tenets provide standards against which governance proposals should be evaluated. They articulate the characteristics the ecosystem intends to preserve as the blockchain evolves.

Participation and governance responsibilities

Article II recognizes the participation rights of ADA owners and describes the responsibilities of the three governance bodies.

ADA owners may register as DReps, delegate their voting rights to registered representatives, and change their delegation. The Constitution also establishes expectations regarding transparent governance processes and protection against undue influence.

DReps exercise voting power derived from delegated ADA and may vote on all governance action types. SPOs participate in specified decisions, particularly those concerning network security and protocol operation.

The Constitutional Committee has a different responsibility: evaluating whether governance actions are consistent with the Constitution.

The Constitution also introduces procedural standards for governance proposals. These include sufficient explanations, supporting documentation, and requirements intended to preserve the integrity of proposal records.

Treasury withdrawals receive additional attention through requirements concerning funding purposes, expenditure transparency, oversight, and independent audits.

Guardrails: mandatory rules and guidance

The Constitution’s guardrails are restrictions intended to prevent governance decisions from creating unacceptable risks to the blockchain.

Some are mandatory and enforceable through ledger rules or a Guardrails Script. Others require evaluation by governance participants, including the Constitutional Committee.

The document distinguishes mandatory provisions expressed as must/must not from advisory provisions expressed as should/should not.

This distinction matters: a proposal may satisfy the technical checks required for on-chain submission while still raising constitutional questions that require human assessment.

The Constitution also recognizes that technical restrictions may need revision as the protocol develops and new evidence becomes available.

4. Constitutional History

Cardano’s constitutional framework emerged through its transition toward decentralized, on-chain governance.

An Interim Constitution was introduced in 2024 to support the initial governance implementation. During that year, community consultations and constitutional workshops contributed to the development of a more comprehensive document.

According to the original constitutional proposal, 63 constitutional workshops and two preliminary beta workshops were conducted across 52 countries, engaging approximately 1,400 participants. The consultation process culminated in the Constitutional Convention in December 2024.

The resulting Constitution was submitted on-chain in January 2025 and enacted in February.

The constitutional framework subsequently underwent further proposed revisions. The following table documents four New Constitution governance actions, including two that were enacted and two that expired without changing the Constitution.

Constitutional governance actions

Proposal	Submitted	DReps Yes	CC Yes	Outcome
Original Constitution (v1.0)	Epoch 537	84.9%	100% (7/7)	Enacted, epoch 542
Constitution v2.0	Epoch 574	55.6%	33.3%	Expired, epoch 581
Constitution v2.3	Epoch 586	64.8%	100% (5/5 counted; 2 abstentions)	Expired, epoch 593
Constitution v2.4	Epoch 601	79.8%	85.7% (6/7)	Enacted, epoch 609

Source: DRepTalk governance action records. DRep percentages represent the proportion of active voting stake supporting each proposal, rather than the proportion of individual DReps voting Yes. CC percentages reflect eligible votes under the relevant tally. For these historical proposals, the DRep approval threshold was set at 75% through a configurable protocol parameter, while the Constitutional Committee required 66.7% approval.

The original Constitution replaced the interim framework after securing the required approval from both voting bodies.

The subsequent v2.0 and v2.3 proposals did not achieve the required DRep approval threshold. Although v2.3 obtained five affirmative CC votes with two abstentions, its DRep support remained insufficient for ratification.

Version v2.4 was ultimately approved and enacted in January 2026. Its revisions included changes to constitutional terminology, governance procedures, documentation requirements, and safeguards applying to Treasury withdrawals.

This sequence illustrates an important feature of decentralized governance: proposed constitutional changes can be revised, rejected, or resubmitted before achieving the required level of support.

On-chain records

Each proposal can be examined through its public governance action record:

Proposal	On-chain governance action
Original Constitution	AdaStat
v2.0	AdaStat
v2.3	AdaStat
v2.4	AdaStat

The full texts of the two enacted constitutional versions are also available through content-addressed IPFS documents:

Original Constitution: IPFS document - ratified in epoch 541, enacted in epoch 542.
Updated Constitution: IPFS document - ratified in epoch 608, enacted in epoch 609.

These records provide a verifiable history of constitutional decisions. A proposal’s on-chain identifier, the hash of the constitutional document, and its IPFS content identifier serve different purposes and should not be treated as interchangeable.

5. How Can the Constitution Be Amended?

The Constitution is designed to evolve through Cardano’s on-chain governance system.

Amendments are submitted through a governance action of the New Constitution type. This mechanism can change the constitutional document referenced on-chain and, where applicable, its associated Guardrails Script.

Under Article IV of the version enacted in epoch 609, constitutional amendments require support from at least 65% of active voting stake, unless a different threshold is specified in Appendix I for a particular guardrail.

The Constitution establishes a permissible range of 65% to 90% for the DRep approval threshold of New Constitution governance actions, under guardrail VT-CON-01. The exact threshold is determined by a configurable protocol parameter, dRepVotingThresholds.dvtUpdateToConstitution, which was set at 75% for the historical proposals examined here.

Separately, the Constitutional Committee must satisfy its own approval threshold, determined by the committee’s configured voting requirements. For these proposals, the CC threshold was 66.7%.

Therefore, the constitutional minimum, the configured DRep voting threshold, and the Constitutional Committee’s approval requirement are distinct elements of the ratification process.

Stake Pool Operators do not vote on New Constitution governance actions.

After the necessary approvals and ratification conditions are satisfied, the amendment can take effect according to the applicable on-chain governance rules.

Constitutional amendments may involve relatively limited textual revisions or more substantial changes affecting governance procedures, institutional responsibilities, or technical safeguards. The significance of a proposed amendment therefore depends on its content, not merely on the fact that it changes the constitutional document.

6. Ongoing Developments: Improving the Amendment Process

The mechanisms for constitutional amendment are established on-chain, but developing, reviewing, and building consensus around proposed changes also requires off-chain coordination.

The Intersect Civics Committee has been developing a complementary Constitutional Amendment Process intended to make this work more structured, transparent, and accessible.

The initiative includes procedures for identifying constitutional issues, developing proposed amendments, gathering community feedback, and documenting their evolution before potential on-chain submission.

Two concepts are central to the approach:

Constitution Issue Statement (CIS): identifies a constitutional problem or concern without necessarily proposing a complete solution.
Constitutional Amendment Proposal (CAP): describes a proposed constitutional change that can be examined, discussed, and refined.

A dedicated Constitutional Amendment Portal is being developed to support this process.

The initiative also considers different types of amendments, recognizing that editorial corrections, interpretative changes, technical modifications, and substantive governance reforms may require different levels of consultation.

The process is voluntary and does not replace the formal on-chain amendment mechanism. A governance action can still be submitted without passing through the committee’s proposed consultation procedures.

This distinction is important because the institutional process continues to develop. Its documentation and implementation status may change independently of the Constitution itself.

Readers interested in current consultations, procedural revisions, or the portal’s development should consult the Civics Committee’s Constitutional Amendment Process documentation.

7. Official Documentation and References

The sources below provide the constitutional text, historical records, voting data, and related institutional documentation.

Constitutional documents

Cardano Constitution - Reference Website - Full enacted text, constitutional structure, and ratification history.
Original Constitution (Enacted in epoch 542): View on IPFS
- CID: bafkreiazhhawe7sjwuthcfgl3mmv2swec7sukvclu3oli7qdyz4uhhuvmy
Updated Constitution (Enacted in epoch 609): View on IPFS
- CID: bafkreieyuknozbtewyurfqoagvplvykadn6a4u6wglupavdz46bbsnnl6e
CIP-1694 - Technical specification of Cardano’s on-chain governance framework.

Historical governance records

Institutional developments

This article is an educational overview produced for the Agora Knowledge Base. The original constitutional documents and on-chain governance records remain the authoritative references. Historical voting figures are attributed to DRepTalk. Information about ongoing institutional initiatives reflects the documentation available at the time of review.