Civics Meeting Minutes Sep 4 2025

Attendees:

Name	Attendance	Role	Voting Seat (Y/N)	Election Term
Nicolas Cerny,	Yes	Chair	Y	April 2026
Larisa Mcfarlane	Yes	Secretary	N	N/A
Thomas Lindseth	Yes	Intersect	N	N/A
Ken-Erik O	Yes	Member	Y	April 2026
Nana Safo	Yes	Member	Y	April 2026
Alex Seregin	Yes	Member	Y	April 2026
Randy	Yes	Member	Y	April 2026
Taichi Yokoyama	No	Member	Y	October 2025
Reshan Fernando	Yes	Member	Y	October 2025
Max Van Rossen	Yes	Guest	N	N/A
Takeshi Ohishi	No	Member	Y	October 2025
Jack Briggs	Yes	Intersect	N	N/A
Tevo Saks	Yes	Guest	N	N/A

Recording: CIVICS Committee (Intersect) Mtg - 2025/09/04 13:58 BST - Recording

Transcript: CIVICS Committee (Intersect) Mtg - 2025/09/04 13:58 BST - Notes by Gemini

Chat Transcript: Cardano Civics Committee Meeting - 2025/8/21 - Chat Transcript

Decisions/Actions

Decisions

• Dedicated Meeting for Constitutional Amendment: The committee decided to schedule a separate, dedicated meeting to properly discuss the community proposal for a constitutional amendment process and to define the committee's official position and potential role.

• Broaden Grant Eligibility for CIP-149: After discussion with Jack, the committee moved toward dropping the recommendation to exclude Yoroi and Eternal from the DRep donation grant, favoring a more open and less exclusionary approach.

• Grant Payment upon Completion: It was agreed that any grant for implementing CIP-149 would operate on a post-payment model: wallets must first complete the work and prove its functionality before receiving the funds.

Actions

• Organize Constitutional Amendment Follow-up (Civics Committee): The committee is tasked with setting up a follow-up meeting with the proposers (Teo, Max) and other stakeholders to create a clear path forward for the constitutional amendment initiative.

• Finalize CIP-149 Grant Program Details (Jack, Larisa, & Thomas): An internal group will work offline to finalize the operational details of the grant program. This includes verifying the list of eligible wallets, setting a final budget cap, and drafting a formal grant document (PRD).

• Report Back with Grant Proposal (Jack, Larisa, & Thomas): The internal group will present the finalized grant program details back to the Civics Committee for formal approval before it is made public.

• Clarify Wording in Community Proposal: Following feedback from Thomas, the proposers were advised to change the wording regarding the "AI voting member" to more accurately reflect its role as an advisory and data analysis tool.

• Carry Over Agenda Items (Larisa): Larisa will move all un-discussed topics from this meeting's agenda to the next scheduled committee meeting.

Topic	Discussion	Notes
Constitutional Amendment Proposal Review	The committee reviewed a proposal for a workstream addressing the constitutional amendment process. Nicolas framed the discussion around how the Civics Committee could best help facilitate various community-led initiatives without taking control of it.	The central topic was a community proposal to create a structured process for amending the Cardano Constitution.
Proposers' Perspective	Max and Tevo joined the call to provide context. Max emphasized the goal of reactivating community delegates through workshops and noted the proposal is open to being scaled down and focused. Tevo expressed a desire to move the process forward on-chain and get wider community feedback, as the effort had stagnated.	The proposers are seeking a path forward and are open to refining the proposal to focus on current needs and gain traction.
Constitutional Concerns & AI Voting	Thomas reviewed the proposal from a Constitutional Committee perspective. He raised concerns about the wording of "AI as a voting member," stating it could be deemed unconstitutional. Max clarified the AI's role is for data analysis and enablement to inform a team's vote, not as an autonomous voting entity itself.	Thomas advised that the wording in the proposal should be clarified to reflect the AI's role as an advisory tool, not a decision-maker, to avoid constitutional issues.
Next Steps for Constitutional Amendment	The committee discussed how to proceed. Nicolas suggested a separate, focused meeting to define the committee's position. Nana proposed facilitating a working group led by Max and Teo to refine the proposal into something more likely to gain DRep support.	A decision was made to continue the conversation in a dedicated meeting to define a clear path forward, potentially through a new working group or a refined proposal.
CIP-149 DRep Donation Grant Update	The discussion shifted to the committee's recommendation to provide grants for wallets to implement CIP-149 (Optional DRep Compensation). Jack joined the call to discuss the recommendation and next steps.	Jack joined to follow up on the committee's recommendation to fund the implementation of the DRep donation CIP.
Grant Amount and Scope	The committee reviewed their proposed grant of ADA per wallet. Ken-Erik clarified this amount was intended to subsidize, not fully cover, the implementation cost. Jack found the amount reasonable but wanted to determine the total potential budget by identifying all eligible wallets.	The grant amount of ADA per wallet was deemed reasonable. The next step is to identify all eligible wallets to calculate a maximum budget.
Wallet Eligibility Debate	A major point of discussion was the committee's recommendation to exclude Yoroi and Eternal wallets from the grant due to their practice of promoting their own DRep in their UI. Jack expressed concern that this could be seen as exclusionary and conflating two separate issues.	Jack challenged the recommendation to exclude Yoroi and Eternal, arguing that while their DRep promotion is a valid concern for governance health, it shouldn't block them from a grant for a feature that benefits the ecosystem.
Community Perspectives on Exclusion	Members discussed the option to delegate where they chose, promoting permission-less decentralization. It was discussed that the primary goal is to get the feature implemented, gather data, suggesting any exclusion could be dropped.	The committee had a nuanced debate, weighing the principle of not rewarding wallets that centralize delegation against the practical goal of widespread feature adoption.
Determining Grant Eligibility	Alex raised the point that the list of eligible, SIP-95 compliant wallets needs to be verified and updated. Jack agreed and suggested the grant could be open to any wallet that commits to becoming compliant, with payment made only after the work is completed and verified.	It was decided that the grant should be open to any wallet that can demonstrate CIP-95 compliance (or a commitment to achieve it) and successfully implements the feature.
Action Plan for CIP-149 Grant	Jack proposed that he, Larisa, and Thomas would work offline to finalize the total budget, create a detailed grant document (PRD), and verify the list of eligible wallets. This would then be brought back to the committee for final approval before going live.	An internal team (Jack, Larisa, Thomas) will handle the operational details of the grant program and report back to the committee.
Meeting Wrap-up and Next Events	Larisa announced that since only the first two agenda items were covered, the rest would be carried over to the next meeting. She also reminded everyone of an X Space about the Intersect board elections happening in one hour.	Unfinished agenda items were postponed. An X Space on board elections was announced.