Governance Incentives Framework 2026
Discussed in the Governance Review for epochs 650 to 652.
113 DReps voted · 53 with a rationale · 2 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 2 to no, together voting with 460.9 ₳ of voting power.
Voting concentration
4 of 113 DReps cast half of the voted power.
Largest voter 15.6%, top 5 combined 56.5% of 2.9B ₳ voted.
The 36 largest voters together held as much voting power as the 67.0% threshold required in yes votes.
- Abstain56.4K ₳Rationale
At its current state I will ABSTAIN from voting on this proposal. I do find value in an incentive program for Governance but feel this topic requires more discussion. 5M $ADA for research is not viable in my eyes at this time.
- No56.1K ₳Rationale
nope.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I can also voice what Megan said already - this is a research grant, not anything with concrete outcomes.
In isolation, this would be a big plus for me, as it distributes and decentralizes Cardano’s research - away from the monolithic IOR team - and fully in line with other independent community research groups, like the Incentive WG. However, a grant over roughly 1m USD for a 12-month project, run by 2 people, that aims to provide an answer to a widely contested and highly emotional topic seems kinda ridiculous. Especially with such a proposal, which reads a little unprofessional.
Costs are nicely broken down into categories, but neither category gets justified for, or explained at all(??)... Which would be crucial, because the amounts are not intuitive - and appear to be very expensive.
I do like the S.M.A.R.T. KPIs, but at the same time consider them to be rather random and hardly quality-controlling. Anyone can talk to 50 people and create a dashboard showing (something?) that loads in 3sec — for 1m USD.
The team may or may not be appropriate to lead this, I dont know them, but their Catalyst and Cardano track record seems… …ok? Ok enough I guess.
Scanning through the references and what the 2 proposers are actually bringing to the table: they quote a lot of content from other groups. All they (seem to) have written is https://cips.cardano.org/cps/CPS-0020 which is pretty good quality, but also not exactly rocket science. In it they say “what's bad” in their views, and what things would need to be considered for a “whats better”.Id welcome such a proposal if they were to start smaller and prove themselves to produce value worth 1m USD like by providing more research done by them, or generate previews or outlooks of where they see the outcome to go. Also, they should please break down the costs more - IO may get away with generic categories, but not a new research group.
- Abstain45.3K ₳No rationale
- No15.7K ₳No rationale
- No14.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes6.8K ₳No rationale
- No3.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7K ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes688.8 ₳No rationale
- NoChanged293.8 ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain24d agoSuperseded
- NoChanged167.1 ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes17d agoSuperseded
Voting YES on Governance Incentives Framework 2026 (₳4.21M). As elected Cardano Civics Committee member, Unified Cardano Student Club President in Nigeria, and advocate for inclusive governance, I support rigorous research into sustainable incentives for DReps and other actors. Current participation costs time and money, which risks concentrating power and excluding voices from emerging markets and student communities like those I work with in Africa. A well-designed framework that increases the number of independent, active DReps (not just better-paying existing large ones) would strengthen decentralisation and long-term participation. I expect transparent methodology, clear success metrics focused on diversity of active participants, and full public reporting. This is an investment in healthier governance rather than a blank cheque.
- No10.8 ₳No rationale