Blockchain teams sometimes do this constitution thing. I really don't see the point of it. In short: since you can't test code changes against a constitution without lawyering about it, it has little practical value.

A Contrived Example

A contrived example, using this paragraph:

In the event a bug is discovered, no hard fork will retroactively change an account balance unless the exploit involves amounts in excess of 1% of the market capitalization. In this way, the blockchain consensus will offer a continuous bug-bounty and reward those who identify it.

Let's say that a bug leads to an exploit that involves ~1% of the market capitalization. Affected shareholders would call for a hard fork and feel justified in doing so. But that's not technically in excess of 1% if its 0.9999% (even exactly 1% wouldn't technically be in excess of 1%). I would guess that the majority would choose not to be pedantic about it and allow the hard fork to happen.

However, in an equally-defensible view, you've broken the contract that the Constitution serves as by implementing that hard fork. The rest of the Constitution should be considered null and void. Some other arbitrary point would be that if the exploit involved a value slightly in excess of 1% of the market capitalization, then inflation would soon render that amount less than 1%. Should the percentage of market capitalization be considered final as of when the exploit occurs?

Lawyering

There's just no winning. There are people whose entire careers revolve around making a favorable interpretation of words that somebody else wrote. In the end, whatever binary is downloadable from the website and whatever code is in the official repo is what will be used. If there's a dispute over it, I doubt that the majority of people will hesitate to use the official source/executables.