Governance

Anchor document

https://adastat.net/_meta/drep/vote152.jsonld
Hash matches the chain Open original

This document doesn't follow CIP-108 or CIP-119, so there is nothing to lay out. The raw JSON is below.

Document

Hash (BLAKE2b-256)
52c9a37189ca6db7bc6ed3c32622c76a2a9972716a106507f3f69a6fabceef40
Hash on chain
52c9a37189ca6db7bc6ed3c32622c76a2a9972716a106507f3f69a6fabceef40
Fetched from
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/CardanoExplorer/drep/main/vote152.jsonld
Raw JSON-LD
{
  "@context": {
    "CIP100": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#",
    "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm",
    "body": {
      "@id": "CIP100:body",
      "@context": {
        "references": {
          "@id": "CIP100:references",
          "@container": "@set",
          "@context": {
            "GovernanceMetadata": "CIP100:GovernanceMetadataReference",
            "Other": "CIP100:OtherReference",
            "label": "CIP100:reference-label",
            "uri": "CIP100:reference-uri",
            "referenceHash": {
              "@id": "CIP100:referenceHash",
              "@context": {
                "hashDigest": "CIP100:hashDigest",
                "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm"
              }
            }
          }
        },
        "comment": "CIP100:comment",
        "externalUpdates": {
          "@id": "CIP100:externalUpdates",
          "@context": {
            "title": "CIP100:update-title",
            "uri": "CIP100:uri"
          }
        }
      }
    },
    "authors": {
      "@id": "CIP100:authors",
      "@container": "@set",
      "@context": {
        "name": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name",
        "witness": {
          "@id": "CIP100:witness",
          "@context": {
            "witnessAlgorithm": "CIP100:witnessAlgorithm",
            "publicKey": "CIP100:publicKey",
            "signature": "CIP100:signature"
          }
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "authors": [],
  "body": {
    "comment": "I've seen several SPOs raise concerns about reducing minPoolCost to 75 ADA, arguing that it could make running a pool unprofitable.\n\nI don't share this concern, because minPoolCost does not require pool operators to set their PoolCost to the minimum allowed value. The current minPoolCost is 170 ADA, yet many pools already have a higher PoolCost — 200, 340, or even 500+ ADA.\n\nPool operators are free to choose whatever value they consider appropriate and that allows their pool to remain profitable.\n\nTherefore, I'm voting Yes on this parameter change."
  },
  "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256"
}