Name the Protocol Version 12 hard fork “von Bergen“

gov_action1fzatpjn3e3r09mjzzfptznef9wxg8q4a5uraq04xvfjyhmfzhzfsqqgfc9h · Info action

Recorded by a member of the Institute · published 22 Aug 2026

What was reviewed

The proposal metadata anchor and its on-chain hash, and the governance action record on gov.tools. Intersect weekly updates #122 (31 July 2026) and #123 (7 August 2026), which set out the Hard Fork Working Group's intention to name PV12 after Alexander Esgen, describe a proposed In Memoriam section in the hard fork governance action metadata, and acknowledge this von Bergen action. The van Rossem precedent: the info action naming PV11, which carried 83.62% DRep support representing 4.44B ada, and the PV11 activation on 18 July 2026. Cardano's hard fork naming history from Byron through van Rossem. Cardano Forum records for the Tempus (TMS) stake pool and the SPO interview series, confirming Fabian von Bergen's ambassador and SPO status since 2018. Intersect Technical Steering Committee minutes evidencing Alexander Esgen's Peras work.

Primary rationale

Fabian von Bergen's contribution is not in question and this vote is not a comment on it. He was an ITN-era participant, ran the Tempus (TMS) stake pool, was an ambassador from the earliest days of the programme, and was a steady and honest presence on the Cardano Forum for years. If the only question in front of me were whether he deserves recognition from this network, my answer would be yes without qualification. I am abstaining because two deserving names are in play for the same upgrade and there is no agreed procedure for reconciling them. Nothing is written down about who may propose a hard fork name, how competing proposals are reconciled, or what weight a DRep tally carries once cast. Without that, a vote here does not express a judgement about merit. It expresses a preference, and preferences aggregated into a tally will look afterwards like a decision the community made on principle when it was not. A Yes would also rank Alexander Esgen below Fabian, and I have no principled basis for doing that. Esgen's Peras work sits directly inside the release this fork opens, which is its own kind of fit. I would rather state that plainly than fold it into a vote and leave the reasoning unstated.

Risks

An abstention on a memorial action can be read as a comment on the person. That is the main risk in this position and the reason the reasoning is published in full. A supportive tally that the Hard Fork Working Group later sets aside would leave a visible record of DRep sentiment being solicited and then ignored, which does not help confidence in the governance layer. Resolving competing names by tally with no criteria risks establishing that naming outcomes turn on timing and visibility. That is a poor precedent to set by accident. Deferring pending a framework carries its own risk: frameworks deferred sometimes never arrive. I have tried to mitigate that by stating what I would support and on what terms.

Uncertainty

Whether the Hard Fork Working Group treats a DRep tally on a naming action as binding input, advisory input, or neither. Not stated. Whether the proposed In Memoriam section is meant as recognition alongside the fork name or as an answer to naming questions. Not settled. Whether Fabian's family was consulted before this action was submitted. Not stated in the metadata and I did not approach them. Whether further naming proposals for PV12 are expected before the hard fork action is submitted. The broader question stays open: what is commemorative hard fork naming actually for, and what recognition sits alongside it for contributors the naming cannot cover. I also obtained no expert or peer input before the deadline. The questions are recorded; the answers are not.

Conflicts

Nil, checked and recorded. No relationship, financial or otherwise, with the proposer, with str8pool, with the Tempus stake pool, or with Fabian von Bergen's family. No relationship with Alexander Esgen or with the Hard Fork Working Group. No compensation, solicitation or inducement of any kind connected to this vote. No holding or position gains or loses value on any outcome of this action.

What could change this position

An agreed hard fork naming procedure his claim can be assessed under, covering who may propose, how competing proposals are reconciled, what weight a tally carries, and what recognition sits alongside the fork name for those it cannot cover. Confirmation that no competing name is being carried forward for this upgrade, which would reduce this to the single-name question the van Rossem action was and make it straightforwardly answerable. A statement from the Hard Fork Working Group that it treats a DRep tally on naming actions as binding, which would make the tally an instrument capable of settling the question rather than a preference poll. Credible evidence that Fabian's family did not want this action brought, or that the record of his contribution is materially overstated. Neither is indicated by anything I reviewed.

Proposal source

Submitted on chain by a community member, not routed through Intersect's Hard Fork Working Group. Metadata anchor: https://str8pool.com/governance/2026-07-23-FabianvBergen.jsonld Anchor hash: 95c0bcf2ec42756d6f12f8110d40826021fca29ed82526609efb62d9e79c98ad Legacy ID (CIP-105): 48bab0ca71cc46f2ee421242b14f292b8c8382bda707d03ea662644bed22b893#0