Voltaire Update: The CIP-1694 Temperature Checks - Insights and Analysis
The Cardano Ballot temperature check on CIP-1694 successfully concluded on 16 December 2023 when the voting results were announced. You can find the results on the leaderboard page of the Cardano Ballot page. The community conducted a second temperature check alongside the Cardano Ballot temperature check. The Summon Association, a leading DAO tooling provider on Cardano, and DripDropz, a pioneering token distribution system, joined forces to bring the Cardano Community another opportunity to indicate their preferences regarding the current progress of the CIP-1694 development. You can find their voting results here.
As mentioned in my previous post, the Cardano Ballot, in its current stage, could not support hardware wallets. This gap is where Summon and DripDropz’s solution came in. Their voting DApp also supported Hardware Wallets and, later in the voting process, even allowed voting via the cardano-cli. It is a testament to a maturing community to see builders from separate teams coming together and implementing a second poll with additional features. This was a clear signal of how mature the Cardano community and its builders are.
Voting Results Cardano Ballot
| Answer Choice | Total Votes | Voting Power (ADA) | Average Voting Power (ADA) | Proportion of Votes (%) | Standard Error of Proportion | Margin of Error for 95% CI | 95% CI - Lower Bound (%) | 95% CI - Upper Bound (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 720 | 110,744,335.92 | 153,811.58 | 93.39% | 0.00895096315 | 0.01754356541 | 91.63% | 95.14% |
| No | 30 | 148,003.93 | 4,933.46 | 3.89% | 0.00696447148 | 0.01365011328 | 2.53% | 5.26% |
| Abstain | 21 | 835,765.20 | 39,798.34 | 2.72% | 0.005862174095 | 0.01148965011 | 1.57% | 3.87% |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Totals | 771 | 111,728,105.05 | 144,913.24 |
Participation and Stake Analysis:
Interestingly, the turnout for the ballot was relatively low, with only 771 wallets voting out of over 1.3 million. This represents a mere 0.06% of the total wallets, a factor that could impact the representativeness of these results. Regarding stake, the 111.73 million ada that participated are only 0.49% of the total staked ada, which currently is around 22.75 billion ada. It is important to note three significant outliers in the “Yes” votes from the Cardano Foundation, IOG, and EMURGO. They have not been removed in this analysis.
Factors Influencing Low Turnout:
- The nature of the poll as a non-binding temperature check likely contributed to the low turnout. Ada holders might not have been motivated to participate in a decision-making process that would not directly lead to immediate or binding outcomes.
- The relatively short notice of two weeks for the Cardano Ballot event might not have been sufficient for a broader community engagement. This lack of adequate time for public awareness and marketing could be a critical factor in the low participation.
- Many ada holders are not interested in participating in the governance process.
Understanding Confidence Intervals
To understand the implications of these numbers, let’s explore the concept of confidence intervals. At its core, a 95% confidence interval suggests a fascinating idea: if we conducted the same poll over and over, about 95 times out of 100, the results would fall within this interval. It’s a statistical tool that gives us insights into how the broader population, in our case, all the delegated wallets, might behave or respond based on the patterns we observe in a smaller sample. Essentially, it’s like taking a snapshot of a small group and, with 95% confidence, projecting that picture onto the larger canvas of the entire population.
95% Confidence Interval Analysis for Cardano Ballot Votes
-
95% Confidence Interval for “Yes” Votes: 91.63% to 95.14%
- This interval suggests that if the entire wallet population had voted, between 91.63% and 95.14% would likely have voted “Yes.” The high lower bound of 91.63% indicates a strong preference for the “Yes” option, although this is based on a small sample of voters.
-
95% Confidence Interval for “No” Votes: 2.53% to 5.26%
- This range implies that, under similar voting conditions, between 2.53% and 5.26% of all wallets might have voted “No.” While a minority, this indicates a notable divergence of opinion within the voting population.
-
95% Confidence Interval for “Abstain” Votes: 1.57% to 3.87%
- The proportion of “Abstain” votes among the entire wallet population could range between 1.57% and 3.87%, pointing to a segment of voters who were undecided or sought more information.
Results from the Summon Platform
Notably, the outlier “Yes” vote from the Cardano Foundation of 11.43m ada was removed for this analysis. In addition to removing the outlier, it is crucial to note that the Summon Platform allowed voters to delegate their voting power to someone else. Twenty-four delegated their voting power of 64.21 thousand ada.
| Answer Choice | Total Votes | Voting Power (ADA) | Average Voting Power (ADA) | Proportion of Votes (%) | Standard Error of Proportion | Margin of Error for 95% CI | 95% CI - Lower Bound (%) | 95% CI - Upper Bound (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 185 | 14,087,538.41 | 76,148.86 | 93.43% | 0.01760190833 | 0.03449910642 | 89.98% | 96.88% |
| No | 7 | 123,872.08 | 17,696.01 | 3.54% | 0.01312405127 | 0.02572266784 | 0.96% | 6.11% |
| Abstain | 6 | 4,225.29 | 704.22 | 3.03% | 0.01218227655 | 0.0238768233 | 0.64% | 5.42% |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Total | 198 | 14,215,635.78 | 71,796.14 |
Participation and Stake Analysis
The participation in the Summon event was notably low, with only 222 wallets voting out of 1.3 million delegated wallets. This represents about 0.02% of the total wallets. Regarding stake, 14.22 million ada participated, which is only 0.06% of the total staked ada.
95% Confidence Interval Analysis for Summon Platform Votes
- 95% Confidence Interval for “Yes” Votes: 89.98% to 96.88%
- This suggests that if the entire population of wallets had voted, we could expect between 89.98% and 96.88% of them to vote “Yes,” with 95% confidence.
- 95% Confidence Interval for “No” Votes: 0.96% to 6.11%
- This range implies that, if voting patterns were consistent, between 0.96% and 6.11% of all wallets would have voted “No.”
- 95% Confidence Interval for “Abstain” Votes: 0.64% to 5.42%
- The interval suggests that the proportion of “Abstain” votes in the entire wallet population might be between 0.64% and 5.42%.
Overall Implications and Future Directions
While for both the Cardano Ballot and Summon Platform temperature check, the “Yes” votes dominate among those who participated, the confidence intervals highlight that there is still a degree of uncertainty regarding the true sentiment of the entire wallet population. Interestingly, the proportion of “Yes” votes is remarkably similar across both platforms, suggesting a consistent preference among those who chose to participate.
The low turnout in both samples and the confidence intervals suggests that the results should be interpreted cautiously. They provide a snapshot of the opinions of a minor, potentially non-representative segment of the broad community sentiment.
Understanding why most ada holders chose not to participate is as crucial as analyzing the preferences of those who did. This insight could guide future engagement strategies and decision-making processes within the Cardano community.
My Reflections
Despite the low participation in both temperature checks, these exercises provide valuable lessons for future governance polls. We need more inclusive and user-friendly polls with higher participation rates to gauge the community’s sentiment. Future temperature checks should cater to all wallet types and be accessible in multiple languages, reflecting the diversity of the Cardano community.
The recent move by the Cardano Foundation to open source Cardano Ballot paves the way for anyone capable of initiating a voting event, marking a step towards inclusive and decentralized governance. As we progress on this governance journey, understanding and adapting to the community’s needs will be vital to fostering a robust and participative ecosystem.