Hello everyone,
I’m Mikhaïl, a long-time community member closely observing Cardano’s governance evolution.
Recently, together with a small group of other community members, we have been reflecting deeply on the current governance model — particularly after analyzing some issues emerging from the NCL process and other types of votes.
Today, I’m here as a representative of our group to present a structured proposal aimed at improving the system.
Our goal is to gather honest feedback, understand if the proposed model is unnecessary, inefficient, or, hopefully, a step towards a more effective and resilient governance framework for Cardano.
We look forward to your thoughts, criticisms, and suggestions!
Short Abstract
We propose a specialized and structured governance model that builds upon existing Cardano mechanisms — such as DReps, Intersect, and SPOs — to better balance expertise, transparency, and democratic legitimacy.
Rather than reinventing everything, this model refines and organizes governance to make it more efficient, resistant to manipulation, and scalable for Cardano’s future challenges.
Introduction
This proposal introduces a structured governance system for Cardano, where DReps choose an expertise domain (or more), collaborate within specialized committees, and work through structured debate — while final decisions remain in the hands of the community through voting.
The goal is not to redesign governance from scratch, but to build on the foundations already laid (DReps, Intersect committees, SPOs, Constitutional Committee) and optimize them for clarity, efficiency, and resilience.
Current Issues in Cardano Governance
Despite significant progress, Cardano’s governance model still faces several critical challenges:
Blurry Responsibilities
Governance responsibilities are spread across different bodies without strict separation of tasks, making decision-making unclear.
→ Solution: Our model enforces clear division between committees (analysis), the Inter-domain Council (coordination), the CC (validation), and DReps (voting).
Intersect’s Unclear Role
Intersect plays a role in coordinating Cardano governance, yet its authority boundaries and operational impact remain poorly defined.
→ Solution: Specialized committees and the Inter-domain Council absorb analytical responsibilities, while Intersect continues to support community building and infrastructure without direct control.
Lack of Structured Expertise
Today, all DReps are expected to vote on all topics, even highly technical ones they may not understand.
→ Solution: Specialization by domains ensures that each proposal is first reviewed and synthesized by informed experts.
Slow, Inefficient Decision-Making
Without structured filtering, discussions can become chaotic and decisions inefficient.
→ Solution: Initial coordination may take more time, but results in higher-quality, better-filtered proposals — speeding up the final voting and improving decision outcomes.
Limited Protection Against Targeted Lobbying
While overall decentralization provides some protection, small groups could still be targeted for lobbying or manipulation.
→ Solution: Final voting is always by all DReps on major issues, under CC supervision to ensure legitimacy.
Detailed Presentation of the Specialized Governance Model
- Delegation and Specialization of DReps
ADA holders delegate their voting power to DReps as today — no changes for the end-user.
Each DRep selects a domain of specialization (Technical, Budget, Governance, Marketing, etc.).
Specialized DReps collaborate within their respective committees.
- Committee Structure
Within each committee, DReps elect a small group of representatives who coordinate the work and represent their domain in cross-domain discussions.
These committees are responsible for analyzing proposals, debating internally, and drafting structured synthesis documents.
- Inter-domain Council
Elected representatives from each domain meet to resolve cross-domain conflicts and build coherent synthesis documents.
The Council ensures that Cardano’s overall interest prevails over domain-specific interests.
- Constitutional Committee (CC)
Elected by the community, composed of individuals or institutions from diverse jurisdictions.
Responsibilities:
Validate the constitutionality of proposals.
Define who votes (all DReps vs specialized committees).
Ensure transparency through public justification and individual voting disclosure.
Can be impeached if misconduct is suspected.
- Voting Process
All DReps vote on major strategic or financial decisions.
Specialized voting is allowed for minor, narrowly scoped decisions (validated by CC).
Results are published openly.
- SPOs’ Role
Stake Pool Operators (SPOs) ratify the results technically, ensuring network safety remains paramount.
- User Experience
ADA holders delegate to DReps as they do today, without needing to understand specialization unless they wish to.
Optionally, users can view DRep specialization and choose accordingly.
They may also vote directly on specific major issues if they prefer.
Example: How a Proposal Would be Handled
-
A community member proposes a new parameter adjustment for staking rewards.
-
The proposal is submitted to both the Technical and Budget Committees.
-
Committees analyze the technical feasibility and financial impact.
-
They draft a synthesis document, presenting different implementation options.
-
The Inter-domain Council mediates and finalizes the proposal.
-
The Constitutional Committee validates that all DReps must vote on this change.
-
A public vote among all DReps is held.
-
SPOs ratify the decision technically.
-
Implementation follows.
Advantages of This Model
Clear responsibilities and division of work across different bodies.
Strong expertise applied before decisions reach the voting stage.
High transparency throughout the decision-making chain.
Faster and more coherent voting outcomes through better pre-filtering.
Simple experience for users, maintaining Cardano’s philosophy of accessibility.
Future Areas for Refinement
Optimize governance cycle timings for committees and voting processes.
Develop performance-based rewards for active DReps and committee representatives.
Expand and formalize external advisor pools to reinforce technical expertise.
Improve user experience by highlighting DRep specialization in delegation interfaces.
Create regular governance reviews every 12–18 months to adapt and improve the model over time.
Implement Projet Catalyst as a part of this model, under the jurisdiction of one committee for simplicity, clarity and efficiency.
Conclusion
This proposal aims to refine and structure Cardano’s governance without reinventing it.
By reinforcing existing mechanisms and specializing efforts, it ensures Cardano remains a decentralized, transparent, efficient, and scalable system capable of facing the complex challenges of a global blockchain ecosystem.
We welcome your feedback, challenges, and improvements to this vision!