During a break on Day 2 of the Cardano Africa Tech Summit (12/02/2026) in Nairobi, we had the opportunity to learn about Cardano governance directly from Mike Hornan, a member of Intersect’s constitutional committee. He then explained to us more about participation in Cardano governance, particularly through the roles of DReps, SPOs, and the Constitutional Committee, as well as the logic behind Cardano’s decentralized governance model, among other key concepts.
However, one question remained unanswered due to the limited time:
Is Cardano governance truly fair when some DReps hold high influence while others remain at 0 % due to the small amount of ADA delegated to them? Doesn’t this suggest that large ADA holders disproportionately influence major decisions, while decentralization should be inclusive?
What follows is my perspective based on publicly available data from tempo.vote/dreps.
“If my understanding differs from reality, I welcome your clarifications and insights.” 
Concentration of Influence
Cardano uses a liquid democracy model: DReps’ voting power is proportional to the ADA delegated to them.
Here are the current most influential DReps:
| DRep | ADA Delegated | Delegators | Influence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yoroi Wallet | 695.12M ₳ | 18,555 | 11.91 % |
| YUTA | 458.21M ₳ | 1,473 | 7.85 % |
| EMURGO | 297.8M ₳ | 398 | 5.10 % |
| Blockdaemon | 286.44M ₳ | 89 | 4.91 % |
| Eternl DRep Committee | 247.47M ₳ | 9,178 | 4.24 % |
These five DReps alone account for nearly 34 % of total voting influence power, showing a significant concentration—even when some have relatively few delegators but large ADA holdings.
Small DReps: Minimal Influence
DReps with smaller delegated ADA and fewer delegators have extremely limited impact. For example:
| DRep | ADA Delegated | Delegators | Influence |
|---|---|---|---|
| π Lanningham | 11.23M ₳ | 184 | 0.19 % |
| Holger | 11.19M ₳ | 200 | 0.19 % |
| Paul Ko | 11M ₳ | 80 | 0.19 % |
| STP | 10.99M ₳ | 16 | 0.19 % |
| Clean_Eyes | 10.09M ₳ | 8 | 0.17 % |
Combined, the 50+ least influential DReps represent only ~2 % of total voting power.
A concrete example: Clean_Eyes has only 8 delegators and 10.09M ₳, giving it 0.17 % influence—nearly negligible compared to dominant DReps.
Key Observations
-
A minority holds a large portion of power
- Dominant DReps amplify the influence of large ADA holders.
-
Small DReps remain almost unheard
- Even with multiple active delegations, their voting power is extremely low, highlighting a gap between theory and practice.
-
Open questions for the community
- Can the system be considered fair if a minority controls a disproportionate share of decisions?
- How can we encourage broader participation and strengthen the influence of smaller DReps?
- Are there mechanisms to better balance power between large and small stakeholders?
These observations reflect my personal interpretation of publicly available data from tempo.vote/dreps, and while voting dynamics in Cardano can shift over time, additional technical context or perspectives may further refine this view. I welcome all insights, clarifications, and alternative interpretations to foster a constructive discussion toward a more fair, inclusive, and genuinely participatory Cardano governance system.
Data Source: tempo.vote/dreps