{"@context":{"CIP100":"https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#","hashAlgorithm":"CIP100:hashAlgorithm","body":{"@id":"CIP100:body","@context":{"comment":"CIP100:comment"}}},"hashAlgorithm":"blake2b-256","body":{"comment":"**Vote: NO**\n\nResearch can and should inform that process. **It should not become the process.**\n\nI agree that governance incentives deserve attention. I strongly disagree that another **₳4.2M research-and-framework exercise** is the right way to move them forward.\n\nThe proposal itself acknowledges **49 existing pieces of work** already addressing governance compensation, participation, concentration, reward design and related issues. Yet the overwhelming majority of this request goes toward conceptualization, research, modeling, workshops, data infrastructure, dashboards, administration and contingency—with only about **₳333K of ₳4.21M** allocated to actually testing an incentive mechanism. At the end, we receive a framework, papers, models, a CIP and a pathway for yet another governance decision about implementation. \n\nAt some point, more evidence about how we *might* incentivize governance has diminishing value. A framework has no authority simply because we paid millions of ADA to produce it, and future governance is under no obligation to implement its conclusions.\n\n**Looking outside of our own ecosystem:**\nOther ecosystems have learned by **deploying bounded incentive programs, measuring actual behavior, and iterating**. Arbitrum has repeatedly adjusted delegate compensation, eligibility and scoring based on observed participation and gaming behavior; Optimism has similarly experimented with delegate rewards, compensated governance bodies and delegation mechanisms. They have produced evidence by doing, measuring and correcting—not by waiting for a comprehensive theoretical framework before acting. \n\nCardano is well past the point where the primary constraint is a shortage of governance research. If existing research supports a promising mechanism, propose a small, controlled implementation with clear objectives, limited duration, measurable outcomes and an explicit stop/iterate decision. Try it. Measure it. Learn from actual behavior. Then spend more if the evidence warrants it.\n\nI cannot justify spending more than **₳4M** primarily creating another evidence-based framework that governance may or may not ever use when we could be putting a fraction of that capital toward real-world experiments today. We do not need another expensive description of the problem nearly as much as we need disciplined attempts at solving it."}}