A Solution to the ADA Whale Fears

<< This post has been inspired by the ongoing debates in Will ADA Whales Ever Give Up Their Power? and What is Cardano’s Purpose?, including some contextual info in We Are Trapped in a Bubble.>>

Purpose of This Post: (1) Present and discuss an alternative ADA distribution/capital structure that would expand the pie for all ADA stakeholders and simultaneously return a higher ROI and more total long-run wealth to the team and early investors; (2) fix Cardano’s most significant PR problem, which is virtually guaranteed to get worse over time and it will suppress the long-term market growth of ADA.

Capital Structure Adjustments Are Very Common. As you read this post, please keep this fundamental business principle in mind: If an organization’s capital structure is not aligned with its stated goals, then it doesn’t matter whether existing investors like the status quo or not because a bad capital structure will prevent the company and investors from achieving their goals. For this reason, capital structure adjustments happen every day in the business world; so, there’s no rational reason for anybody to perceive anything I’ve ever described in this community as some kind of crazy, communist plot to harpoon any whales.

What Is the Ideal Capital Structure (aka, ADA Distribution)? I suspect the team chose the current structure because they were afraid of losing control too early before the platform was mature enough to handle real democratic governance. Assuming that’s the case, it’s possible to create a clean separation between the ADA capital structure and the governance process so that the economic wealth and political power over platform development were not controlled by the same benevolent rulers. Respectfully, I’m pretty sure there is no technical reason why the team and whales need to collectively own 65-75% of the entire ADA economy if wealth and governance are separate (at least in the beginning). In fact, this will be a significant PR problem and it will turn off many millions of people once they understand exactly how concentrated ADA actually is because it renders many of Cardano’s most inspiring selling points totally moot. As a result, it doesn’t matter what the current capital structure is if it’s not sustainable in the real world of Political Economy.

Early Investors Will Gain Much More from a Capital Restructuring than They Will Without it. In the proposed ADA capital/distribution restructuring analysis below, we would be asking the whales and founders to restructure a portion of their holdings, but the results would be a much bigger pie for everybody over the long-run. This would result in greater wealth for the whales and early investors than they could achieve under the current capital structure. In fact, it would only require a 1x increase over the expected status quo returns for all the investors to achieve a greater total level of wealth than they would with the status quo. And after the restructuring, all the other ADA stakeholders would have an opportunity to earn much more ADA wealth, too; then all the existing ADA distribution problems would disappear.

The analysis below illustrates how the early investors/team would achieve a 4x increase in ROI more than the status quo capital structure. Recall that the ROI for successful cryptos is already ridiculous (most of the early investors already have at least a 30,000% ROI as of today (in JPY)); so, what I’m describing here is in addition to the expected status quo returns, i.e., 4x the status quo projection (4 x 290,540%), which results in a 1,452,795% ROI. (Only in cryptoland is this realistically possible.)

“Max Future Price ADA.” This represents a possible maximum price of ADA (in Japanese Yen) based on certain conservative assumptions associated with the two capital/distribution structure scenarios. Of course, the actual max price could be more or less.

This Solution is Aligned with the Best Interests of Our Entire Community. Below is the same analysis, which illustrates that it only takes a 1x increase in the price of ADA over the status quo scenario to enable the early investors/team to achieve a higher ROI and more total wealth than they would under the status quo, while simultaneously spreading the wealth throughout the economy much more evenly. And given the expected PR benefits associated with this capital structure adjustment, we can realistically expect much more than a 1x increase, which means this proposal is fully aligned with the long-term best interests of the early investors, the team, and our entire community.


ADA Value & Minting Streams. With the early investors currently owning 65-75% of all ADA in circulation, distributing the ADA based on stake alone is obviously a path to perpetual oligarchy. All the idealistic comments about how they hope the whales will behave (e.g., “Why would the wales crash the market and hurt their own interests?”) reflects a deep misunderstanding of markets and organizational politics in the real world. It also completely defeats the purpose of building a decentralized platform and it ignores all the lessons from the history of Political Economy. So, IMHO, the ADA minting rewards should flow throughout the ADA economy based on the following synergistic principles of equity, accountability, and systemic sustainability.

Based on 100% of total future minted ADA (specific unit quantity defined later) . . .

  • Stake Value (20%): This portion of total future minted ADA flows to ADA stakeholders on a pro rata basis , which is based on how much ADA they already have. (See caveat for founder’s stake below.)

  • Humanity Maintenance (20%): This portion of total future minted ADA flows to all ADA stakeholders on a per-human basis (e.g., a basic income), which is based on recognizing their essential value and dignity as human beings. This may seem strange now, but many types of A.I. will also be stakeholders on the network (some probably already are); thus, we should create an ADA economy that places a higher priority on human welfare over the welfare of A.I. stakeholders. (Verifying that a wallet is attached to a human could be based on numerous existing zero-knowledge proofs without leaking any personally identifiable information.)

  • Network Maintenance Value (20%): This portion of total future minted ADA flows to stake pool operators, which are essential to maintaining the stability and sustainability of the network. (See caveat for founder’s stake pools below.)

  • Ecosystem Innovation Value (20%): This portion of total future minted ADA flows to stakeholders based on several metrics that measure the value/impact that their technological innovations contribute to the ADA ecosystem. This includes Dapps, Ouroboros protocol improvements, hardware wallets, ADA<->hardware interfaces of all kinds, etc.

  • Social Value (20%): This portion of total future minted ADA flows to stakeholders based on how many people they bring into the ADA economy.

All the minting reward streams listed above can be substantially automated and crowd-voted through the Cardano treasury system so that we are not concentrating too much human discretion in the hands of a few human CF administrators. Additionally, all five of the minting streams above are valuable and important for Cardano’s long-term success. So, even though I know some relatively hardline libertarians will probably not be completely comfortable with the 2nd and 5th bullets, I hope they will think deeply about how A.I. will affect Cardano and human societies in general and reconsider how humans will survive when A.I. begins to take the vast majority of human jobs. Fiat and Crypto basic incomes can be part of the solution.

How Should Founder’s Stake be Treated? The founder’s and many early investors will be billionaires and mega-millionaires, especially if they execute a strategy that truly inspires worldwide confidence and enthusiasm for the ADA economy. In this context, the founder’s staking rewards (including any founder’s stake pool rewards) should be treated as “unissued ADA” (not burned) and distributed across the five categories above to non-founders throughout the ADA economy as part of the normal minting process. (Note: @Lovelacepool deserves credit for inspiring us to think about this idea.)

The PR Benefits of this Benevolent Approach. Committing to this approach and demonstrating that the founders are not greedy will be inspiring for many people. This will inspire a much larger portion of humanity to join the ADA economy, which will increase the price of everybody’s ADA much faster. This is one of the most significant reasons why I have confidence that the restructuring plan I’ve described above would be a much more profitable and sustainable capital/distribution structure for the entire ADA economy. If the power of this principle is truly understood by the founders and our community, then there’s no rational reason for any of the early investors to reject this idea; nor is there any reason for anybody to complain that this is somehow a communist plot to steal anybody’s ADA (that would be ideological blindness). To the contrary, it’s a big win-win for everybody.

With that in mind, please keep your minds open and consider the following capital structure (ADA distribution) tables, which correspond to the capital/distribution restructuring analysis above.

This Proposed ADA Distribution Resolves the PR Problem, which is the Biggest Problem of All. If our community really wants ADA to become a global currency, then we should pay much more attention to the optics of this ADA distribution problem. Technical superiority is not enough to overcome all the major competitive threats in the world today. So, IMHO, this capital structure will help us eliminate this significant PR time-bomb and help us to maximize the global confidence, adoption rate, and price of ADA.

This Proposed ADA Distribution is Realistic & Achievable. If our community understands the PR and long-term sustainability benefits associated with the proposed capital/distribution structure above, then the next step would be to make a commitment to adjust the existing capital structure accordingly, which is a very common practice in the business world. With a consensus in place, the team could then work with each bloc of early voucher investors to adjust the existing structure (based on well-established capital structure adjustment principles) until the targets illustrated above are achieved.

This is done every day in the investment banking world; so, anybody who thinks this is impossible has never had to deal with hundreds or thousands of shareholders in a public company. In large public companies, delicate issues (including capital structure adjustments) are frequently brought to shareholders; and the shareholders who care about the company’s future usually cooperate as long as the company’s executive leadership understands the issues well enough to make a persuasive case to the shareholder community. This situation is no different.

Distribution of Voting Power. The administrative control of the Cardano project is a separate process and so it should be separated from the ADA distribution process during the first few years until some set of “Platform Milestones” (PM) are achieved. Each accomplished PM would bring the community closer to being fully democratic. Then, once the final PM is achieved, administrative control of the platform could be gradually handed off to the community based on a mixed proportional representation voting system based on the following two primary criteria:

  • Per-Human: 50% of total voting power could be exercised on a per-human basis using the Single Transferrable Vote method, which is widely regarded as the most efficient and democratic vote counting method ever created. (Again, zero-knowledge proofs can be used to confirm that the wallet address is owned by one and only one human without leaking any of the human’s personally identifiable information. This way, no human would ever be able to vote twice with multiple wallets.)

  • Per-ADA: 50% of total voting power could be exercised based on ADA stake.

Those two voting components can be merged into a single mixed-proportional voting system that provides a much more democratic experience than what we would have today if voting power was based only on ADA stake.

And implementing the zero-knowledge proof features will open the door for many other interesting forms of accountability, which can reduce currency volatility, fraud, and many other forms of harmful behavior without sacrificing our privacy.

Bottom Line: Fixing the capital structure will simultaneously increase the total pie for everyone, increase the investors’/team’s ROI and total long-term wealth, eliminate the ADA concentration problem, and eliminate the corresponding PR problem. Fixing the capital structure would not require a hard fork, but if the capital structure remains the way it is now, that creates a structural incentive for many groups to exploit this weakness and fork Cardano later. That structural incentive currently exists regardless of whether we talk about it or not; so, closing our eyes and hoping for the best is not a very useful option.

Looking forward to your thoughtful comments.

(NOTE: I put a significant amount of time into this post. So, I would appreciate it if the nasty trolls would ignore this post completely or find a way to be on their best behavior. Thank you.)


My brain’s not up to dealing properly with this at the moment – and it might be quite a long moment – but on a superficial level at least it is very impressive, and I’m looking forward to a good, respectful discussion.

1 Like

Yes to that.

1 Like

Cardano beginner here: but why do the pie charts say 31/60 % of “Remaining for Mining” if everywhere I looked at people say you can’t mine ADA.

First, we are never going to get a Capital restructure - That is wishful thinking, this is not a company, this is money. If you redistribute in a forceful manner ADA, you have ruined all trust in ADA now and in the future. I for one will NEVER EVER be evolved again, do you think I would ever dare to have any significant amount of money stored in ADA? should it become money? No fucking way, and I dont even know if this is technically possible without hardforking, but lets say it was - and there are going to be many many after me, no re-branding could ever fix this… and to be honest, I believe there would be a lot of law-suits filed, if they were to be forcefully liquidated at a certain price (specially if below market) to redistribute to someone else, that is obviously a scam.

If you can get some large holders to sell their ADA voluntary in a huge block at a fixed price to new holders, I am all for that, go ahead. But it has to be Voluntary - and if its such a great deal for them, then that should be easy

Forcefully, absolutely not, because:

Now if this was the be done as you said, YOU are suddenly a early investor/whale… Now minority holders will come in at 2 years, saying the same thing, wanting to do the same thing with you, and the cycle repeats never ending.

We have to set the standards, we Have to have principles, of what may, and may not be done. For every action, it is setting a precedence for the future.

Charles was against redistributing (back to the original owners) a huge amount of Stolen funds in Ethereum, due to some bugs in smart contracts thats why Ethereum Classic is now here. So if he was against that, he is certainty not going to be for this - Its called principles. Now I know its not all about Charles, but for now, It kinda is. I totally back that opinion, and so do many others. Code is law. It doesn’t matter if someone even stole 30% of all ADA. The monetary system HAS to remain immutable to be trusted. Other means than touching the code must be found of getting these funds back, and if it cant, so be it.

Over time in a free-market, if ADA supposedly were to become some form of money, then top 20% would sit on 80% and concentrations are exponential as you go up that ladder, this is the national flow of assets in a free economy. Not because it is being taken from those below, but because assets are created on the top. Because assets are an expanding part of the economy, and money is not. It is very few people who are interested, have the skills, to cultivate and develop assets. So this completely natural, and necessary, and will happen anyway, no matter what “starting” distribution you have - the top group will change all the time, 50 years from now its going to be different people but there will always be a top group - because it is only a small percentile of the population that has the skills to manage assets of a certain size, and this is where money flows to. There is nothing economically bad in this, as long as it is done in a free-market with voluntary transactions.

For every 100 born, very few are going to be entrepreneurs, leaders, creators, innovators etc. Most just go to work (input) and spend their salary (consume) a zero-sum actor, they work for the former mentioned people and thats totally fine, nothing wrong in that. But no assets are created, the reason why wealth distributions is as it is, is not because those at the top took from those at the button, it is because they “created” these assets out of nothing and everyone benefits from that in this system. of course those who benefit the most are the creators which is obvious, thats the incentive and risk-adjusted reward for fulfilling peoples demands.

Regarding Cardano, as far as I understand it. It will be in layers, the monetary system aka. ADA wont be what will be voted on. Like no one could vote on taking money from one account and putting it into another account. The layer that is changeable is the layer the virtual machine etc is running on, making it adaptable for the future and what to spend what is in the treasury for.

There are many limits that could be in place of what can inherently be voted on. So if it is inherent only the platform layer, and what the treasury can spend money on, then all damage is limited and we are all working in Cardanos best interest, since those with most at stake has the most to gain from Cardano being better.

We do not want Per-human votes, here is why. First it would require implementation many many years from now, it wouldn’t be simple but here is why we dont want it. ADA will be competing with many projects, and now is suddenly open to attack. Holders or followers of competing currencies, signing up to smash ADA and this is a REAL THREAT, because money is involved, people will do this. Just look at youtube, if a popular-youtuber says something bad about someone, thousands of people will go out of their way to sent deaths threats and all kinds of shit - and they have no incentive really, now think if MONEY was involved.

Thats why we want stakeholders to be voters. What we CAN DO, and what will work is to set limits on very important decisions. Lets say the Fee of ADA transactions could be changed, then say 75% to 25%

You would need majority 75% vote, so the chances of 75% of holders screwing over 25% is unlikely, and this ratio can be played with, and with each tick up it is exponentially less worth it - this automatically balances things out, this is the proper way to do it without diluting votes/per ada way to vote on very important decisions that will impact everyone.

There is no PR problem, look at Bitcoin and all other coins it has and had the same issue, it didn’t stop Bitcoin at all and it wont stop Cardano. It also hard to take it seriously when you believe there is A.Is holding ADA. There is no A.I in this world, very few are even working on A.I. Machine learning has nothing to do with A.I. they just use A.I as hype word. I dont know when this started to become a synonym… When true A.I arrives, that is the next step of evolution - and then our petty human existence wont really be relevant, we can enslave coded machines that has no drivers, but we wont be enslaving A.I to work for us thats for sure.

What many fail to understand is that Cardano is trying to build “Money” backed by “Utility” to be money it has to be a value-stable - increase in price is NOT the objective of Cardano - that is a objective of a “Speculator” You do not Invest in money, you store economic energy in money. The only reason we are in this awkward situation is, is the speculation of the appreciation of the ADA in the process of becoming money, that transfer of wealth comes from whatever it is replacing - thats where this awkward situation arrives, where people think it is the objective for the price to go up because they see it as an investment, - but it is not a investment, it is a speculation on price appreciation by the value transfer of whatever it replaces.

Its just a weird situation we have never seen before in history with a funny dynamic… When you have startups for money, and many fail to fully grasp this concept.

You invest in companies, You invest in yield-producing assets, You dont invest in money and its very important to understand that Your objectives as a speculator, is not Cardanos, Entrepenours, innovators, and Charles objective. If Charles somehow could solve the value stable problem, by locking in the price at 0.005 Cents and it would keep its inflation-adjusted price into perpetuity even if it meant everyone who invested would lose money, I bet he would do it, because its the right thing to do.


Semantics: mining = staking.

Most and especially some secondary details sound very good to me.

50/50 (or something similar) distribution of voting power for real humans and stakeholders sounds like a good and respectful compromise.

Same for 20/20/20/20 minting streams.

Both would help preventing the so called PR-problem. Or (instead of fearing Larimer-type attacks) we should call it much more credibility in a fair and well-thought-out socio-ecological system. (Bank transfers and credit loans per se are usualy nothing bad. The problems came up - in whatever system - if the rules and chances aren’t well balanced)

To be honest I haven’t fully understood the primary point: restructuring the whales stakeholdings. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not against it. I just have not understood what it effectively means, how exactly it would work and if the expectation that having less of something larger is enough to convince the existing top100.

I wish I could respect all the time of the original poster more but I am quite limited on time today and I wished to comment a bit at least. I am with jb455 on this one. Forced capital restructure is definitively not the way to go and would shatter future trust in ADA. I think code=law is important for trust. Then again I think this has potential to be very abused if one makes code that can be abused or use code=law as an excuse to grab peoples money with known weaknesses etc. But as a principle that creates trust code=law is very important. Any changes apart from this has to be voluntary.

1 Like

The most optimal solution and the solution I believe in is, that the code is so good that eventually weaknesses are a thing of the past - validators that automatically detect the weaknesses before they go live. With that said, there could be a regulatory framework, a legal framework for this making it Illegal so one could be criminally prosecuted, with punishments and be demanded to pay back the funds. But even if it was Illegal, the funds cant be transferred by force of the network then the integrity has been broken.

I agree with you that we dont want people to use that as a fair-game excuse, that is where legal-contracts come into play.

I understand whole part of your points and can agree with quite a lit of them. only a few of your statements create a strange bad feeling in my stomach. But that’s not different in what Charles H. says all the days long, so don’t worry :wink:

Of course nothing else than convinced and not mugged whales is acceptable. It’s about possessing less of something that becomes much larger and precious.

Code is law, (or why CH forked ETH) would be a strong and valuable property. The big question is who defines that code or rules? Who sets the limits within whom stakeholders can vote? (Something like a fundamental constitution, where stakeholders can vote like Members of Parliament?!)

The PR-problem can appear on two completely different frontiers. First there are many investors of other crypto’s acting like a highlander (there can only be one) Such players would appreciate any possible issue, and talk about it in a very overblown way. So avoid any scratch on the surface because it would be used as an attack vector.
Second there is still a very large majority of this world who is not involved in crypto’s. Some because they even still don’t understand how to use a smartphones messenger app or email attachments. Others because they have heard about all thus cryptolocker attempts at extortion, or unbelievable and -explainable “disapperances” of digital money. (Just talked today with some people who discussed about coindash and what could explain the now in parts returning ethers) you know there happened pretty much of such strange things favouring anything else than trust.
And you shouldn’t forget about all thus people working and living from pure tax money. This are much more than just a bunch of politics who would strongly oppose together with classic bankers, as soon as they understand that crypto will strongly affect their tax money procurement machinery.

1 Like

Also remind that Cardano claims to have or strive two special properties:
1.) sidechains on top of whom all other (then replaceable) crypto’s can be transfered.
2.) Regulation-friendly
Both are very great things to get some very fundamental crypto-nerds as “friends”

1 Like

biggest PR problem of crypto is that it’s full of charlatans

1 Like

This is in regards to your pool weight idea, called “lever pulling” by Charles, and which the team are no doubt debating this very topic right now.

I’ve worked out a small scenario based on this Per-Human/Per-ADA proposal.
Lets assume only 3 pools:

  • Pool A with 5 large holders of 1m ADA each.
  • Pool B with 5k holders of 1,000 ADA each.
  • Pool C with 50,000 people, but only holdings of 100 each.

For better visualization, imagine:

  • Pool A is 5 early investors, who purchased their ADA at a very low price.
  • Pool B is a Youtube continent creator, who has a popular crypto channel and has managed to attract 5,000 of his followers to buy ADA and stake with him.
  • Pool C is a developer who managed to build an app that rewards gamers on Twitch every time they sign up, with 100 ADA, meaning 50,000 people are now holding ADA.

As per the Per-Human/Per-ADA proposal, The Network is able to value the work done by Pool C as the work of highest value, as it values humans in the network, rather than just ADA, and thus highest reward.

In a 1 ADA = 1 Vote scenario, all 3 pools get an equal payout, regardless of the people brought into the network.

When it’s launched, I suspect the team will have a more considered weighting structure than simply 1 ADA = 1 Vote.


Nice work there… In response to @lovelacepool

As you can see on your stats It seems very skewed to those who have the least, has the most say… Like do people with 100 ADA really have an incentive to be informed and educated about decisions? I guess they could delegate to specific people… But why would we trust those with the least stake and risk to have the most say?

I know EXACTLY how this will end, socialism… Lets for the sake of argument say this governance structure has the power to redistribute… Thats what it will end with… They will vote for redistribution… We know this, because that always happens in the real world… In every culture… In every corner of the planet… Because there is clear incentive to do so. Organized theft has been morally green-lighted in modern culture… Once we go down that road, Its over with… We will become a Socialistic Crypto, and it will fail, and there will be competitors that are not…

People like @ADALove (no hate) are going to say… LOOK… LOOK AT THESE WHALES… See how much they got, and how big of a risk they are… Delegate all of these votes to me, and Ill redistribute or come up with some scheme… and all these holders with 100 ADA would love that, because they only have 100 ADA, they have nothing to lose… This example was just for entertainment purpose, but this is serious stuff and the threat is real… and in the charting you just made you show that those with 100 ADA are stronger than any other group by that metric, they have absolute voting power if its by 50-50.

Lets say we stick to 1 ADA = 1 Vote

You could have a Yes (75%) No (25%) to reach a consensuses on decisions, aka. requiring 75% majority vote… in this way, you significantly reduce any probabilities of screwing someone over, because it is unlikely that the majority of the network, would screw the remaining 25% there is no incentive for such a thing - of course this also requires a large amount of voter participation, but again, if votes can be delegated, we would see that.

This is highly robust, simple and transparent way to do it, as it is adaptable to any type of distribution…

We will never see reverse distribution from 25% to the 75% that will never happen, because the loss of the value of the network would decrease more than whatever could be redistributed (with any kind of scheme whatsoever) because ADA will be competing in a free market and there will be many choices.

This ratio can be played with, and adjusted for the impact of whatever is being decided on.

Lets for fun just even take this to an extreme. Lets say I had 75% of all ada, 25% to everyone else.

ADA market cap 100 B, majority vote on everything is 75%, so I have COMPLETE control. My value is 75B, What if I stole the 25B? Wouldn’t work, cause I couldn’t cash out, there would be no buyers of ADA. What if I start ripping them off in redistribution? There would be an exodus of the 25% and the value of my ADA would plummet more than I could ever rip anyone of for. Because I cant accumulate my own ADA. So even if I was the SOLE dictator of ADA I am competing in a free market, and I would only want the BEST for ADA for my own selfish purposes… I couldn’t rip anyone off, it would hurt me more than anyone else. Its like running a business, you dont screw your customers if you have competitors, you want the best for your customers because it is the best for yourself. So even in this fairy-tale where one had 75%, there is no incentive to be a bad actor. Yes the one with 75% might be incompetent, and in that way crash the network, but there is no incentive to be malicious - and thats very important to understand. If it was a dicatorship and ADA had monopoly on money and was backed by force, then thats a different story. Then you guys would have a point, but thats not the case here so we cant compare this to traditional power structures


Why? Isn’t it the same in POW? More hashpower = more hashpower. DOn’t see anyone trying to say 1 human = x hashpower max :smiley:
Consensus in pow = longest chains or biggest hashrate chain.
consensuns in pos = majority of stakeholders


This should be a piece of the argument here, Who set’s the foundation of voting and what are the rules defined to vote from pool or from staking in general?

The arguments and solutions raised do not actually address the technicality of clarifying the rules of voting, which may seem to be a small piece of the distribution of votes but absolutely should be incorporated into this conversation.

This is truth, there would be no backlash that could harm Cardano if it was restructured, although Cardano has its sight on being decentralized it is not currently attempting to develop new age banking rules that are out of the norm.
I personal hope that this could only be done by Genesis Block Contributors Consensus to affirm that the original investor’s remain in control of their share, if they truly are interested in the future of Cardano than it is something they would be interested in.


Agreed. You might find this post interesting:


Because progress! :grinning:

There is more to a network than hashpower or majority votes. Consensus in Bitcoin, was a big interesting puzzle 10 years ago. But today it’s been figured out, and with so many flavors that, it’s hardly the key piece of blockchain network anymore. Today, the interesting puzzle is building a network with sustainable governance.

That said, it very well could be 1 ADA = 1 Vote, but whatever it is, will have governance considerations.


For sure, we might have governance debates. But, let’s keep in mind it’s a decentralized network. It doesn’t have a “history” of governance - so we will have to make one. By having thir proportional reward + no min needed (like all mn coins) will for sure make ada attractive for both small, medium and big (institutional) investors.

I still think the community is over evaluating the voting and making decision part. It will be a huge deal in 10-20 years but not for medium term. I would speculate that 100% of all voting proposals in the next 4-5 years will be from IOHK and we will all, friendly and united (small and big holders) will vote for them.

They Treasury mechanism is in the latest stage of the roadmap! Not sooner then 2020. I would also speculate, 2 years will make the ada more evenly distributed. It’s only traded for 5 months, and the last 2 months have low volume.


As I’ve said to you many times: Trivializing and over-simplifying problems does not make them go away. Every successful organization plans and builds for the long-term, even if it’s harder in the short-term. The community is building this platform to exist for generations, which means every decision that we make today will have consequences for decades or centuries.

Just like launching a rocket into space: Even 1 tiny degree of deviation in the beginning can result in huge course trajectory mistakes, which can result in the rocket crashing and burning up in the Sun instead of landing safely on Mars.