---
workshop_number: 6
date: 2026-04-16
title: Beyond MVG Workshop -- Ideating on Governance Recommendations
video_url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8h1r0GhTy0
youtube_description: |
  First live walkthrough of the new Beyond MVG identify and prioritize app. The
  group reviewed challenges drawn from the on-chain governance metrics and
  debated whether DRep delegation "stickiness" is actually a problem, or just a
  signal that delegators are satisfied with their DRep.

  Discussion topics included:
  - Whether incentivising voting actually improves the quality of governance
    decisions, or simply inflates participation numbers
  - How much trust delegators place in their DRep when there is no mechanism
    for delegators to know in advance how a DRep will vote
  - The case for per-issue / granular delegation versus the current "trust one
    DRep with everything" model
  - Lowering the barrier to entry for self-representation as a DRep
  - Nudging onboarding flows toward smaller DReps so new delegators do not
    automatically reinforce concentration
  - Mobile-first UX feedback on the Beyond MVG site (charts not visible, login
    icon unclear)

  Recorded as part of the Beyond MVG prioritization workshop series.
attendees:
  - Tevo Kask (host)
  - Adam
  - James
  - Pseudo Scientist
  - Danielle
  - Seomon
  - Ian
  - Maureen
  - Seon Gbiri
---

# Workshop #6 Transcript -- Ideating on Governance Recommendations

## Transcript

0:00
Hey, Adam. Hey, guys. I'm just driving almost home,
0:06
so I'll be able to join properly in a moment here. All right. Be safe.
0:15
Do you guys think I just send a blast?
0:20
You can on Luma like, "Hey, why are you keeping
0:26
us waiting? Come back here. I don't know.
0:32
Let's do that. Well, why you're on that?
0:40
Um, because here we don't maybe James, I don't know how much you have paid
0:45
attention around like what Beyond MVG has been doing past several months or in
0:52
general. I've been up in some spaces sharing like very short words. We have
0:58
never had discussion. So I wonder do you want kind of like a context, a deep dive
1:04
or with just today's focus. No, don't let me interrupt. I got the
1:11
automated Discord message and was like, "Oh, sure. Check it out." Oh, want to hear what everybody's up to.
1:18
That's interesting connection. Yeah. So if you didn't subscribe that and you are interested to follow up messages then
1:24
you have to click there because I made it like privacy first in a sense which is shooting in myself in the foot some
1:30
ways but it's also an interesting way to see the network and their interest.
1:36
Um so well beyond MG is like basically in the fourth milestone. So uh we got
1:42
funded through this Cardano treasury and most of the work has been doing like u
1:48
reshare some metrics um I don't know if you have seen any of the prior uh
1:53
reports um but I'm going to actually share screen because if you do find like
1:59
that might be an interest then you know where to look for and also share an app.
2:05
So instead of marboards now I was thinking oh maybe we can customize the what
2:11
people can see and find stuff and which is even easier than my robot itself. So
2:16
this is our application made for that and on the like on the homepage you will
2:22
see basically two main buttons on boarding and then identification which like the activity we are like focusing
2:29
in this upcoming weeks and in on boarding you will have
2:34
this governance measurement framework um which basically gives of this uh idea of
2:40
what we are doing with our like reers look at other older metrics dup metrics
2:45
SPO metrics and constitutional metrics. So we had discussions, surveys,
2:51
interviews and now we compiled them into challenges like what are the main problems we see that affect us in the
2:58
Cardano governance based on these metrics and today we are basically going
3:04
to um come up with recommendations how we can help to alleviate some of that or
3:12
yeah assist them. they don't have to like directly be related to these challenges. Um, and also on the top here
3:19
you can see what are the challenges with this page. We're not particularly going to look at it, but this is a way to add
3:25
stuff. Um um so yeah this is like the background
3:31
context where you can find beyond imag work and and gave like the framework of
3:37
stuff you're looking in and going back to this homepage like
3:42
today we're basically looking at the indep identification page which is like the second page of this three part
3:48
system and the challenges are on the left side where you will see the chart
3:53
and then there's the state statements ments or problem statements. And we have
3:59
the list of like categories and they're matching the same way as the metric
4:06
categories like where is your interest lies or a tool you're working on and you
4:11
can put the add recommendation there and basically you're able to also like uh
4:19
assign uh challenges to your recommendation. And once we're done with the recommendation, adding challenges, you
4:26
can post any link stuff tags or filtering later. Um, we will go into
4:32
prioritization stage where we rank order them. Um so this is basically
4:38
in a loop of what we're going to do today and how it's related to Bon and and the Bonj is related to the
4:45
governance metrics that you will be able to uh find on the left side which are challenges
4:53
any questions of context of uh what uh
4:58
like questions you have about anything that I mentioned and hello my own
5:06
jib and Pseudo Scientist.
5:18
Well, if there are no questions, I was thinking maybe like the
5:24
first like five minutes everybody can take their time and go through these challenges and either on this left side
5:31
panel or yeah on the challenge page itself is it feels more comfortable and
5:38
you can basically read what options there are. Um, and if you already have like an inkling or like I I already know
5:45
an existing recommendation and you can start like filling it stuff in, that's a
5:50
also a good start. And that basically like in a five minutes or so when you
5:55
have kind of catched up what's written on the website can get the concept of uh
6:01
what challenges are we looking for and what are even missing and we can yeah open up for discussions regarding of
6:07
challenges that are missing or things that you were expecting to find. but didn't find or already point that at uh
6:15
like yeah either need helping in writing a recommendation or pointing already
6:20
existing recommendation. Then we have like a discussion back and forth and we go to prioritization step
6:28
which has also some fun elements and and like guiding questions to go from there.

## Site Issues

6:37
Was everybody able to get on to the website
6:44
page that we pasted in the chat the link? Uh, I can get on there and look at
6:50
all the challenges, but it tells me I don't have permission to assess this challenge like do I need to be logged in
6:56
or something? Um, yeah. So, we we're not doing assessments for the challenges. Um, and
7:04
yeah, you don't have to be logged in. However, you are right. Um, in case you
7:10
are in logged out state, you may have to use a travel account to login if you
7:15
don't want to create an account yourself or sign with a wallet. And on the top right corner there should
7:23
because that will be using a session key when we do recommendations and stuff.
7:32
So, do people need to log in to add a recommendation in the next step?
7:37
Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah, I was I was looking on mobile and the only icon that you have up there
7:42
on mobile is actually a log like out button or it looks like a going out the door button. It's an arrow pointing into
7:49
a box. Uh it's not very clear that that is like I can log in here and provide some sort of feedback for you.
7:57
Consider that your first piece of feedback. Yeah, I haven't looked at how the like
8:02
mobile version would look at all. Thanks Adam for the UI feedback on
8:09
mobile. Yeah, that's more like a
8:15
same as on uh on desktop as well. U and then after signing in um it looks like
8:21
I'm also having permission issues. I can't leave any recommendations or anything there unless I'm missing a
8:28
step. And you're trying to add recommendation
8:34
in here or in the challenge page.
8:44
Yeah, I guess that was the challenge page. So if I'm leaving in in challenges page, we we are not
8:49
assessing everything or adding any comments. So I have disabled all like the features and I guess just to kind of
8:57
browse through these challenges and read what's what are suggested.
9:04
Okay. So where were you saying that we could suggest something cuz I'm not seeing where that would be at.
9:10
Uh in the identify page we have the categories and for each category we have
9:17
this add recommendation button. Okay. Yeah. And now I'm seeing that there
9:23
and today's focus is yeah uh coming up with
9:29
what what how do we help Kana governance? Yeah on the left side you will also see
9:35
uh like a holder metrics and you will see some visuals there you can click on it and the picture will get bigger
9:42
like this. Yeah. And there you there you actually see

## Sticky Delegation

9:48
what we have actual measured onchain.
9:54
Yeah. And the challenges the same challenges that are in the challenge page are all visible below the
10:01
picture itself.
10:12
uh on this DREP delegation change rate stickiness
10:19
given that your literal 5-day moving average correlates exactly to people
10:25
getting rewards and then selling them almost one for one. Uh I'm not sure how useful that chart actually is.
10:35
Yeah. Well, the point was to see if we do we have liquid democracy. Are
10:43
are uh people uh changing their delegations from
10:48
one DREP to another one? And uh out of this chart uh you can
10:54
basically see there is a similar behavior according to my opinion similar behavior
11:01
uh amongst ADA owners as we see as delegating um delegated direct as we see
11:07
they're delegating to stake operators.
11:15
And the question is then why is that so? Is it because Pseudo Scientist is so happy with his
11:22
DREP? Is the best DREP in the world? Uh or is it because uh Sud don't know how
11:30
to redelegate to Utah? Because uh
11:36
just just um tickle your mind. What would probably make this more useful is
11:42
actually showing when um at what epochs there were actually onchain actions to
11:48
vote on and and make a decision. Uh cuz I would guess it strongly correlates to periods where there's no onchain
11:54
activity for D-Reps to do. There's no campaigning going on. Ergo, there's not a ton of movement in terms of people
12:00
moving their delegation because when DRPs aren't voting, there's nothing to inspire you to move to somebody else
12:06
essentially. Yeah, I think it might be done. Go ahead, Danielle.
12:12
Okay. I was just gonna say one of the things, Adam, no matter what the like pattern looks like, it's so zoomed in.
12:17
Like if you look at the absolute value, um there's like a hundred or fewer
12:23
individual wallets moving. So, we did look at that. It's not in the chart, but
12:29
we did look at like when were things happening. But essentially, like our takeaway is like it's so darn small
12:35
compared to the total. like negligent. That was part of the point I was going to make. The yaxis should probably
12:43
number of accounts instead of percentage. It's kind of the scale of numbers we're talking about really
12:49
doesn't communicate uh how many people are actually moving. It's kind of like well what's
12:55
one 0 01% or you know I I think if we actually quantify actual number of
13:01
addresses moving that might uh paint the picture a little bit uh more clearly.
13:08
Um I would also point out the reason why this uh particular metric popped up in
13:13
here on this identification page is because there was a recognition of a
13:19
challenge delegation is a static rather than dynamic and responsive.
13:24
So like the the whole discussion of yeah like how why this
13:31
was kind of like these things that you were asked were you somewhat discussed and like now it's boiled down to into
13:38
this small challenge itself and if you have like a reason like for saying like
13:45
okay we have this issue of only few people are voting but we want to change it then now we have ability to create a
13:52
recommendation and like to to change this dynamic or have like a social infrastructure and if
13:59
it's not the focus at all we don't write the recommendation for that and this is then we are not dealing with this
14:05
challenge at all. Yeah, I think a lot of these unfortunately, especially around the quote unquote sticky stake problem,
14:12
come from a false premise that people should have some reason to move.
14:19
Um, rather than assuming if they're not moving, they must be satisfied with the level of service that they're being
14:24
provided. Right? So, if I'm supporting my SPO and they're making blocks and I'm getting rewards, what is my incentive or
14:32
rationale to move? And the same with a DREP. if I delegate to them and I see
14:38
that they vote regularly and I mostly or fully agree with how they vote like what is my rationale to move to a different
14:45
derepp. Um so I again I think there's like this kind of like false premise that we're trying to make stats match a
14:53
problem that maybe doesn't actually exist in the model. I would say that, you know, the data
14:58
kind of speaks for itself. Like I think regardless of people's satisfaction with their DREPs, I think we should monitor
15:06
um how delegation changes over time. Like that's I don't think we're necessarily stating uh that it should or
15:13
shouldn't happen. It's just like hey this is the fact of how uh delegation changes and then from reading the data
15:20
we can then infer okay was this due to actual governance actions taking place.
15:25
But yeah, I I do think there's still important things to track uh without holding those implications as Adam was
15:32
saying. Yeah, I think that you know, you really have to first think if um is that
15:38
an actual problem. Uh but regardless of that answer, I think it's still something that's valuable to keep in
15:45
scope of monitoring. Yeah, from my perspective
15:51
with this across all the different metrics, one of the trends that we see is our concentration in DREPs. And
15:58
that's something that comes across as a chief concern from community members as well. And so this is useful in that it
16:06
helps you see the state doesn't really move much. So if you're looking at strategies to handle some other
16:13
problems, it's informative in terms of can we expect people to change their DREP or should we reasonably expect
16:18
they're probably just going to be with their same DREP for a while. So I find it helpful for comparing across and
16:25
thinking through what may or may not work as strategies if we have a different problem because I don't think the stickiness we highlighted as a

## Drep power concerns over concentration

16:32
particular problem per se but um it is informative.
16:43
Uh just another note on mobile I can't see any of those charts. All I can see is like the colored boxes where I can
16:49
give recommendations. I don't see how I can open that up.
16:56
Then I guess you got
17:05
I'm going to write down that I have to go through all the views using phone
17:10
because I didn't do that. I was not expecting
17:16
you need that.
17:22
Yeah. I mean, especially if our one of our stated goals is to increase power at the edges and hit under reppresented
17:29
markets, most of them are not connecting via laptop, they're connecting by a phone. So, uh be mobile friendly first
17:35
uh and desktop friendly second.
17:44
But uh a question to you guys. So what do you guys think uh incentivizes ADA
17:52
owners to delegate in the first place? Do you think they delegate uh because of
18:01
uh rewards or is it actually because they um genuinely think that yeah this
18:08
DREP that's my guy he has my values covered.
18:13
What do you guys think? Uh they're doing it because we locked rewards behind whether or not you
18:18
delegated to a DRE. That's 100% why we have the the amount of participation that we do. The average person doesn't
18:25
care. My wife has onboarded nearly every nurse in her ICU that she works at to crypto. They all keep their assets on
18:32
Coinbase because they have no interest in delegating to secure the network or even and be honest, Coinbase offers
18:39
better returns on their investment than if they withdrew to their own wallet and tried to figure out a stake pool. So
18:45
there's just this huge barrier of learning curve to to self-custody.
18:53
I would also say that uh this is also an artifact of putting barriers into the
18:59
DREP registration process. I think if people were more able to self-represent
19:06
uh that probably would be uh easier for people that have strong opinions to
19:11
participate. Uh but we kind of really wanted to limit how many DREPs actually
19:16
existed. And it it it's kind of forcing people into a model like okay well you
19:22
know I guess we're doing representative um governance here and
19:28
some people would either just you know be comfortable with delegating with one person kind of just never participating
19:34
again but I think incentivizing people to vote isn't necessarily the correct thing like if you were to say that in
19:41
the United States right or any any government like if you're just trying to make voting gamified and incentivized.

## Exploring why people delegate

19:48
Um I think it kind of loses the weight of the actual matters that we're voting upon, right?
19:55
Like now is the quality of people's opinions less or more because they were
20:00
incentivized. There's some reward for them to participate in a certain aspect.
20:05
Um I think you know we we should really focus on like hey like what what are the
20:12
matters at hand and what is like the important feedback that leads to making proper decisions and like in the United
20:19
States you know if we look at participation it's not every person voting on things but uh if you were to
20:25
incentivize people to vote I think that would extremely skew um things
20:31
potentially for the better or the negative right but I I think that's the wrong approach we shouldn't really incentivized voting. We should ensure
20:37
that the quality of decisions are maintained. And how to do that exactly,
20:43
I'm not sure, but I think incentivization might be the wrong approach. I think we're looking for the outcome of more
20:49
participation, but how to actually arise into that. That should be the question. Like how do we make people realize the
20:56
gravity of certain governance actions and how it affects them? uh and then
21:02
maybe make it easier for people to participate uh either by self-representation or you know giving
21:08
them more resources to what DREP actually aligns with them but I don't think incentivization is the direct uh
21:16
pathway to realize that outcome it seems like a simple lowhanging fruit one but I don't think it's adding to the quality
21:22
of decisions that are made in the process would it be possible to incentivize like
21:30
are like an education or focus on
21:35
yeah like these open spaces just be instead of participation
21:41
you you have it's going to be a dangerous because it will then create great competition and like they are like
21:48
the new DREPs that are focusing on educating on governance but that itself
21:54
has like
21:59
Yeah, I don't know. Yeah, inventive if there were good or perfect answers,
22:05
somebody would have already figured it out, right? And and done this a long time ago. Uh we we could pay people to
22:10
vote and we would get a lot more people voting to get paid. But like Pseudo Scientist was pointing out, we wouldn't necessarily
22:16
get better decision-m because those people might not be informed about what they're voting on. uh and then we could
22:23
lower the barrier to entry and let allow everybody to self-represent and vote with their wallet. Uh but then you get
22:28
right into the existing model of why like in the United States here our voter turnout is so low. Uh cuz even being you
22:37
know like let's say 20% of people show up for our nation national elections here in Arizona that makes me out one
22:43
out of 1.6 million people that are voting. Uh so it it begins to feel like my vote doesn't matter. Uh so why should
22:50
I bother? you know, like unless you have a strong sense of civic duty, you don't show up.
22:56
And and an interesting thing just as a side quest. So, so like we had Dows in
23:03
the crypto space. Uh well we still have but uh if you see like dows like compound of unis swap um people uh

## How should we incentivise participation

23:15
uh use their token to claim airrop and by vote they also got uh airrop of
23:22
tokens that actually has nominal world. And for example, if you uh hold a
23:28
compound token, you actually uh take part of decision deciding like how much
23:35
of rewards of the compound protocol protocol goes into your wallet. So you
23:40
have like an in economic incentivize to participate in governance which we
23:47
don't as an individual don't have here on the Cardano ecosystem. I don't know
23:52
if anyone has thought about that.
23:58
I think um you you have to think about what exactly about governance do you want to incentivize it's um do we want
24:06
to incentivize participation overall do we want to incentivize them uh to
24:13
be right um why why they're voting how they vote
24:19
do we want to like what do we actually want to incentivize when it comes to governance incentivization.
24:34
I think one of the things Oh, go ahead. Sorry, John. Yeah. Um in addition to that I also like
24:42
um I think we need to define um in addition to what someone said I think we
24:48
need to define what we see as um I think successful governance or like a successful proposal basically because uh
24:56
do you want more participation or do you want the right people to vote um for
25:03
that particular proposal? What I mean by this is if a marketing proposal, do you want um to incentivize behaviors that
25:10
will drive people who are interested in marketing in the Cardano ecosystem who are experts in the Cardano ecosystem to
25:16
be able to give their um opinion about the proposal or like something like that. So you need to define um okay do
25:24
we want more voters turn out? Okay. Yeah. I know um everyone would love um more voters turn out but like um I don't
25:31
think that has been a
25:39
like that has been the major problems in the system like if we cannot get that I
25:46
think we should be able to get particular um um profile or a particular group to vote
25:55
um in that field or something like that.
26:02
Yeah. Uh Danielle, you want to comment on um it was a previous topic and I think
26:09
my internet was cutting out so I can't comment on what was just said unfortunately. So I'll wait in case
26:14
someone else wants to follow.
26:20
Sure. Adam. Uh yeah, something that just uh occurred to me and I again I can't see the um the
26:29
actual uh graphs that are shown on this page at the moment but is there
26:36
um are we measuring actually like aging of governance actions that end up
26:42
ratifying um because we have this 30-day window in which voting is open because that is
26:48
probably the most objective metric is you know like how quickly or efficiently
26:54
does the ecosystem arrive at decision-m results rather than um
27:02
caring about whether or not we vote yes or no because that's always going to be subject to people's you know kind of
27:07
biases and opinions. Uh but does the average
27:13
uh onchain action that ends up passing and becoming ratified take the full 30
27:18
days? Because I mean that kind of shows you if even the voters you have are apathetic in general or if they're
27:24
actually tapped in and and kind of caring about the efficiency of the govern me
27:30
governance mechanism. Interesting view we haven't made a chart
27:36
for that. the the closest thing we have is basically we measure the uh CC
27:43
members how fast they um made a decision on the different
27:49
bonus action but interesting point there Adam
28:02
yeah I'm wondering here is like the the question here is what is meaning ful
28:07
participation in governance and I'm trying to even figure out like what is the most meaningful governance event
28:13
that even happened here in intersect or in Gardana in general and it's hard to
28:19
kind to me the convention was the most like fun part because everybody you see
28:25
that everybody contributed and their contribution was captured and maybe that's the the only thing that makes a
28:33
provenance valuable is that can point at the source and you can point at the
28:39
contribution where right now it's we can like point at the proposal creator and
28:46
we can point at the DREP uh rationale or
28:52
so we kind of have that in place but I feel like maybe this here where we have the like opportunity or recommendation
28:59
is to enhance like seeing these kinds of relations and maybe if you want to
29:05
incentivize But this yeah it's like a maybe too early but the recommendation
29:10
itself could be like we want to elevate these key elements that we find
29:16
meaningful and somehow have like a better access dashboarding. So we we
29:21
don't even know how we solve this problem but the recommendation could be we invest in that area where
29:28
we we like look more for the same data that we find meaningful and we validate
29:34
it from each person and basically build like a human graph of who
29:42
yeah who agree with value basically or or or who are or feeling that they were
29:47
contributing Uh by the way table did you show how uh
29:55
participant here now can uh click on a holder metrics and then
30:01
and you choose the metrics on the left size here and add the recommendation
30:08
and you like select charter like ADA owner or stickiness.
30:16
Then you can add um your thought of
30:21
um what can be done to let's say fix um
30:29
we talked about redelegation. We have talked about
30:36
uh how ADA owners are incentivized.
30:43
Here we have a challenge called propose are all complex to analyze. Maybe that's
30:49
also kind of related to this meaningful participation is for who is
30:56
it complex? Does he want to know and is is there that guiding community or or
31:03
like scaffolding to help them to understand that proposal or help the proposer it
31:10
themselves make the proposal less complex like we can yeah we
31:18
in in way my recommendations are like building more service layers or more like institutions or teams that tackle
31:26
very specific um yeah issues but I don't know if
31:31
that's the right way to go. Yeah. And I will just add also uh so the
31:39
for record you can add um more um more than one
31:48
um more than one uh challenge. So if you see some correlation with ADA
31:56
owner DREP voting you can um click on on the left side and
32:05
add it to them.
32:12
So uh so what do you think is um
32:18
uh we talked about that the ADA owners perhaps not so motivated due to let's
32:25
say the governance but they are incentivized to rewards. Is that your is
32:31
there any way that we can uh get them more involved in uh in
32:37
governance and and understand uh Adam mentioned that most uh people are
32:44
holding their bags on um centralized exchanges? Should we have um voting as a service on
32:52
u Coinbase, Binance? What do you guys think? What can be um
33:01
plausible solution for getting more AD owners involved?
33:11
Well, yeah, I I definitely don't see, you know, Binance and Coinbase and them
33:17
uh getting involved in casting votes on behalf of their custodial uh holdings.
33:22
And I know in at least some cases for centralized exchanges, that's actually against their terms of service and they
33:27
explicitly say that they're not going to participate in onchain governance. You know, um I can only imagine everybody
33:34
trying to tag CZ every time they want to get a treasury proposal through that that would be a good time.
33:41
Yeah, I was more thinking like um uh so I I know there have been some uh
33:48
talk uh regarding so basically that you have some UI uh on your uh at your
33:55
centralized exchange and a list of uh DR repres and you can delegate your voting power to them and have like similar to
34:04
like for example on Binance Square where you have like news of what's going on and stuff like
34:11
and and the exchange can actually charge people for delegating and redlegating.
34:17
I mean, maybe I I just wouldn't see if I'm already the type of crypto holder that's keeping my assets on an exchange
34:25
why I would care that much about getting involved in the governance aspects of
34:30
the chain because I mean, these guys aren't they're not on X, they're not on YouTube, they're not really doing much
34:35
of anything aside from banking on number go up. essentially. Um, and so again,
34:40
you know, kind of touching back on what Pseudo Scientist mentioned earlier, that might make the participation numbers go up,
34:46
but are we actually getting better decision- making as a result of it? Yeah, fair points. Yeah, Pseudo Scientist.
34:56
Oh, you're muted by it. There we go. Yeah. Um, just really want
35:03
to re-echo that, you know, I think we need to set our north stars. is yeah, we
35:08
do want active participation, but how we do that, it it shouldn't be something that's forced and currently if we look

## A deep dive into how much trust delegators place in Dreps

35:15
at the ecosystem for people that aren't self-representing um their only choice is to trust a DREP
35:23
and there is no mechanism mechanism for a delegator to know exactly how that
35:29
delegate is going to vote or that representative is going to vote until after the vote is done and the action is
35:35
passed. So there's there's a whole lot of trust that's put into the system here, right? Like a DREP can change his
35:41
vote as many times to the edge of the epoch. So there there really isn't a mechanism for a person to actively know
35:49
what their vote actually means. And like kind of to a point that Adam had brought up earlier is like you know when you
35:54
have the delilution of numbers of a bunch of people voting you kind of get the sense that your vote doesn't matter.
36:00
We actually have metrics to say, you know, as a DREP, the numbers of exactly how much influence I have or little
36:07
influence I have is very apparent. It's deterministic of how much influence we have and it's recorded. You know, there
36:13
is a record of exactly what votes you're making. And I really think the mechanism of making it easier for participation to
36:20
happen directly is a good thing. Will it amount to an increase in participation
36:27
direct uh you know significantly? Maybe, maybe not. But it does make sure that
36:33
the ability for a person's vote to have meaningful impact and it be what that
36:39
initial voter was wanting uh to take place. And I think currently there's a
36:44
lot of faith in the ecosystem. Either that delegators just pick a DREP and don't change it or that they're putting
36:51
their faith and trust into a DREP and hope that they vote how they wish them
36:56
to do. So we really don't even have a good metric of how satisfied people are with their DREPs even if they change to
37:03
a DREP. They have to trust that other DREP. So um I think um you know working
37:10
on mechanisms to have verifiable means of maybe you know smart contracts that
37:15
lock uh like a direct can lock in their vote, right? uh which you know there
37:21
there's different ways to think about that because you might want to change uh your position but for delegators to have
37:27
a more deterministic way to know what they're delegating to right uh when we're put into a governance action we're
37:34
we're given three options yes no abstain it's almost that rationale doesn't
37:40
really matter as much as does this align with the vote that I would have put put in and I don't think we have a mechanism
37:46
to really deterministically defined like oh yeah by delegating to this person I
37:52
am going to delegate to the representative that's going to vote in the manner I wish them to
37:59
interesting interesting uh yeah uh James
38:04
yeah well said Pseudo Scientist and I agree with all of that and I would add that the additional layer is we have no idea
38:13
either not yet time will tell which decisions were the
38:19
good ones and which ones weren't. But we don't even have that data yet,
38:26
right? We we have a I mean, how many total decisions have been made? It's
38:32
still a relatively small sample size and not enough time
38:38
has elapsed to know if each of those decisions was the right one for sure.
38:43
And over time, debate will give way to the evidence of whether or not decisions
38:52
were, let's just say, in someone's best interest, and that might be relative,
38:57
too, right? Some decisions might make the token value appreciate in the short
39:03
term, which would be good for those people just parking their crypto on
39:08
Coinbase. other decisions it might take longer and
39:14
against some other success metric to know whether or not they were valuable,
39:20
right? But I know that if as an American, right, and Adam
39:26
referenced voting, I know that I am more likely to vote if
39:32
I'm pissed off about the last outcome because of the evidence I can see in front of me, right? and if I'm satisfied
39:40
with the state of things, I'm more likely to maybe let it slip and and not
39:46
just do it for civic duty. Um, so I completely agree that just getting
39:53
passive ADA holders to vote doesn't feel valuable, right? It just it
40:00
feels like a way of us trying to show our new toys to people who don't care,
40:07
right? But over time, if we are able to represent the quality of decisions,
40:16
getting to that point that Pseudo Scientist is talking about of no like achieving better decisions, which we just can't do
40:22
yet. We can't um I think that's we we should be looking ahead assuming that
40:29
this whole experiment is going to be successful. What's going to help grow that
40:38
engagement organically years into the future when this thing matters a lot
40:43
more than it matters right now?
40:49
Yeah, that's a excellent um excellent point of
40:55
view. Uh Stemon
41:02
um yeah so agree with James we we don't exactly know either um but if we look at
41:09
the mechanism and compare it to what we have in our governments and companies I would say it's um improvement because we
41:17
we vote people into power for years right now and until something bad happens or like four years are up
41:24
nothing changes. in our scenario when something when someone votes just in a way they don't
41:29
like we can immediately switch to another person also I would say I mean
41:34
it's of course you need a little bit of technical expertise but 500 ADA is um I
41:40
know take it back 500 ADA is a lot in in some parts of the world so maybe we that
41:47
is not ideal and also I want to mention getting people to vote is Um I always
41:55
think like in terms of making the decision I don't care if like
42:01
30% of the people vote or 100% of the people vote if the 30% of the people if
42:07
they feel very strongly about it if they made the research by all means go ahead
42:12
let the 30% vote and they vote hopefully the right way with you know the best of the knowledge the best of the um however

## Voting Thresholds Debate

42:20
yeah with the best of the um Yeah, the knowledge. Um, but there is one thing
42:27
which which um I believe is a could be a problem which is let's say Coinbase does
42:34
decide to vote or there's a large incumbent that wants to um
42:40
you know take over governance or vote um in a bad way then I think it is
42:47
important that we have as much voting uh going on as possible.
42:55
Yeah. um table and then after that Daniel as for recommendation
43:01
would Cardano benefit from pooling where we can
43:08
have multiple delegates in a single like delegate to multiple people from a single wallet or even have a platform
43:16
that delegates to yeah I don't know ideas or it's weird
43:23
that we cannot do direct voting like having more hybrid voting maybe gives
43:29
the ability for us to feel like we're in power where right now I wonder like this
43:36
if I redellegate does it take my delegation off for one
43:42
week or it continues on the previous delegation for two weeks or two epochs
43:48
and then just is applied to another one. So it's even this mechanism right now is
43:54
Yeah, somewhere probably written, but I think it needs to be more maybe not
44:00
fluid, but yeah, more hybrid. I would prefer
44:05
because if you if you're m like voting for multiple um T- reps, then you will
44:11
have the ability to see what they're conflicting with each other, why, and then you can start to make more choices
44:17
of uh which T- reps to follow. But if you're only following one and just get
44:23
yes or no and you don't even know what's happening then it's and you don't compare it. Yeah. Well, there are two
44:29
ways to go. We just better comparison tools. But if you give people the power
44:36
to have multiple choices then they probably will look both of the choices.
44:42
It's like I used to invest in ADA but I didn't look that much maybe on news but
44:47
because I had a little bit I always got some feed into it but probably I I
44:53
didn't look like what's Pola doing or Tzos is doing because I didn't own any of these assets and that I think the
44:59
early stage kind of showed that like yeah having the ability to kind of put
45:05
influence something will make you come back later and think about it what you just
45:15
Uh Danielle, uh your turn. Can can you help me out a little bit? I have to just fix a small thing here with my daughter.
45:20
Two seconds. I will be back. But your turn. Yeah. Thanks. Um so kind of the same
45:28
topic that Seomon brought up around kind of centralization and if a bit a big
45:33
actor comes in, we kind of have a problem. So, it's good to have more people staking or delegated to voting in
45:39
that scenario. Um, this is one of the things that I was thinking about based on what the data showed. If you combine
45:45
the fact that um we currently have a situation where two drees could block a
45:51
constitutional amendment, which I find to be a pretty concerning number. Not
45:58
that I'm particularly concerned knowing the actors behind those at the moment, but we are in a situation where two
46:05
entities can block a constitutional amendment. Um, so that's kind of concerning as well as
46:12
like the number of DRPs total to pass um proposals is getting smaller and
46:19
smaller. If you combine that with the fact that people don't really change who they're staking to, um, one of the
46:26
things I was thinking about is if that means every new person joining and delegating as they want to pull out
46:33
their stake rewards. I see that as I assume that's the biggest reason why people delegate is they need to get
46:38
their staking rewards out. So as those people start to like on board, one of the things that feels like it would be
46:44
pretty helpful is for the user interfaces to
46:49
nudge those people to consider the smaller DRPs because I think naturally people who are less familiar are going
46:55
to put more trust either in just one of the like auto abstain option or like the
47:01
big DRPs who they're like, "Oh, these people already have a lot of trust from the community. I'm just going to pick one of them. It's the easy solution."
47:08
So, um, curious if people have any particular thoughts as to whether that's useful, could be helpful, or minimal
47:17
change based on how the system works. Just an idea, I guess.
47:23
Yo, that's an interesting idea, but um you know, I'm not too sure that staking
47:30
rewards is such a big thing, especially for the passive people in this
47:36
ecosystem. Like the people that already participants, that are big pools, that are DREPs. I mean, they have the most to
47:43
gain for as terms of staking rewards. Um so these these people that have never participated in anything in Cardano
47:49
before, right? staking rewards isn't going to be the thing that brings them
47:55
over. Uh because I mean, they have to choose a pool first, you know, if they don't know who's going to give them the
48:01
most returns, like, you know, it's going to take two epochs for them to get those rewards. So, I I'm not too sure that
48:09
staking rewards is the main driver into what people are making their decisions
48:15
in, right? Um I would also say that you know it's very
48:20
interesting that we have an auto abstain option but uh we don't have like a maybe
48:26
not an auto yes but like a a way for direct voting into yes and no and you
48:33
know the way that governance was structured is the fact that you trust a
48:38
delegate holistically but the way I choose my
48:44
representation I agree with someone on three of five issues, but those other issues, I don't agree with him. So why
48:51
do I have to put my entire faith onto one representative who only represents
48:56
me mostly? That could be a 51% or it could be a 99.9%.

## The limitations of delegating to a single Drep

49:02
But like as a person that has you know one a one vote uh initial premise of
49:09
governance was going to be like I don't have a mechanism to truly represent
49:14
myself in every single individual action. I have to either become a DREP
49:20
myself or entrust someone to make all decisions for me. And I think um the way
49:27
input really works is more granular and the system isn't organized in a fashion to have representation at that scale.
49:35
And I think that's a huge detriment that that's that could be a potential turnoff to everyone else that you know we're not
49:41
looking at things at the governance action level. We're looking at it who's
49:46
your representative, right? And it's like that representative doesn't align with me 100%. And I think if we want
49:54
governance to be a more fair representation of what the community wants, we should work towards those
50:01
mechanisms that approach things at a granular level. And then that there
50:06
stickiness doesn't become a big issue because it's per issue that we're looking at. It's not, you know, does
50:13
this DREP has he made all the decisions I want retroactively like, oh, you know what, he didn't vote how I wanted him.
50:19
Now I need to change, but you know, damage done. you know, it's kind of um
50:24
we're looking to correct things after potentially bad things have happened. And that to me is a huge turnoff as
50:31
well, right? Like if if major implications have happened uh that you
50:36
were against, that's not going to make you want to vote in the future. And I
50:41
think, you know, a lot of the things that we're trying to achieve probably aren't possible within the
50:47
current infrastructure that we have. Uh, and it's going to take rethinking how the entire infrastructure works
50:53
currently. And it it's not going to be how do we use the status quo and kind of
50:59
try to to shape things after the fact. I think, you know, a big consideration needs to happen. It's like, hey, is is
51:06
there fundamental major changes that need to take place to realize the outcomes that we're looking at?
51:13
follow-up question that because some of that is surprising
51:18
surprising from my point of view. Um I represent myself so I use the DRAP
51:24
functionality to vote one by one instead of delegating to the DRP and to me and
51:31
of course granted I'm quite familiar with the system so I have a skewed view
51:36
but to me it's not a huge barrier is like one time I had to click a couple of extra buttons to register as a DURP and
51:43
now it's as simple as I connect my wallet I vote yes or no on each proposal. So, I'm curious what the
51:49
barrier to voting for yourself is in this case, cuz I know we call them a
51:56
DREP and you still have to do that and you still are at risk of other people delegating to you. There's no way you
52:01
can stop that. Um, but other than that, what is the extra
52:07
barrier um based on the way the system's set up to voting for yourself? The barrier wouldn't be for voting for
52:13
yourself. the barrier would be for the average ADA holder who is not a DREP themselves.
52:20
So just the step of realizing you have to become a DREP if you want to vote for
52:25
yourself. Yeah, I think that's an interesting question, right? Could we make a major
52:32
impact with people voting with sub 500 ADA accounts? Like are there enough
52:39
small accounts that could actually make a huge impact? like what what percentage of um inactive voters are whales or
52:48
major potential stakeholders in the ecosystem or is it a bunch of small
52:53
fries, right? And um if most of the ADA is stagnant right now, like you know, I
53:00
is one of the barriers that they don't have enough to self-represent as a DREP, right? And if they were able to directly
53:06
represent, are we cutting out a potentially major aspect of the the community that currently is unable to
53:14
self-represent? So, I mean, I don't have the answer to that. Yeah, that's a good point. A following
53:20
it back over to you since we're two minutes away from the end of the time slot.
53:26
added one more recommendation tool to redelegate power uh direct to another
53:33
DEP and just something random to going to close this up.
53:41
You can all asynchronously work adding recommendations when they come up and
53:48
next time I guess yeah we will see if we are having more discussions on here and adding recommendation alternately what
53:56
we could co- off with these looking at these six recommendation seven that uh
54:03
came up today we could um and yeah more comes adding like these like Reddit
54:10
style rank ordering for them. And yeah, in future workshops, what we're going to
54:15
do is based on what goes more top, we will be looking how we score them. And
54:21
uh this will also like open up new discussions like okay we do get to these recommendations because today we realize
54:28
there are like we have so many problems here and like finding the right recommendation is a quite a challenge
54:34
and even if you come to a good recommendation like there is so many areas of that where it may be lacking
54:42
but these discussions bring up like opportunities to have even better recommendations.
54:49
But yeah, for thanks for today joining and trying to get like the first start
54:55
of like coming up with something some improvements for the cards. We have done
55:01
so much work on analysis before and thanks for everybody doing the surveys and the interviews and all the the prior
55:09
workshops to get to this point. Um but now is the real challenge of drafting
55:14
these recommendations. Um but I hope with this upcoming workshops and all this activity we will get to the state
55:21
of getting to some meaningful understanding where we need to go and
55:28
yeah from there we take it into CIP and program statements like CPSS
55:35
great great I wonder we didn't hear today much from Ian Maureen and so you all mentioned a
55:43
bit of uh something do you want also close off and how do you felt about this
55:49
uh today's workshop it was a it was an enriching
55:56
conversation but I I also my the question I'm leaving
56:03
the session right now with in my head is the same one that Danielle asked cuz if
56:12
the challenge is you need to vote for yourself like you want some like you
56:19
want proposals that align with your beliefs.
56:24
What what is the barrier to entry? And to piggy back on on that
56:31
um I how I see it is if we have more stake
56:37
pool operators and more directs you'll also have more plurality of choice where
56:45
you have more people with the like with the cloud to vote in
56:51
a way that aligns with you.
56:58
Yeah, nice. Thanks for uh bringing that up.
57:05
So, with that, thank you to everyone for attending.
57:10
Yeah, I do in the chat here. Uh Marine chilling out uh the beyond link three so that you
57:17
guys can um contribute uh more if you want to. Uh we're going to keep this u
57:24
debate going on and um and um yeah gather some more insight from you
57:30
guys on recommendations what we can improve. Did I did I spoil it now? Was that what you were supposed to say?
57:40
Yes, you spoiled it. I'm sorry. I can't see anything. But yeah, thanks
57:45
so much for coming guys. I I really appreciate it.
57:50
And uh we have another session literally tomorrow. So
57:56
if you don't have a life, well sorry I mean if you have a life, if you care
58:01
about governance, just show up please. Thank you.