The Cardano community recently conducted an on-chain election to select Catalyst Circle representatives for CCv4.
The election was hosted by DripDropz.io, and was based on the $ada power of participating wallets. An impressive 1140 unique stake addresses participated.
However, a small number of wallets with large amounts of ada held disproportionate voting power: just 10 wallets holding over 1 million ada accounting for 40% of the voting power. What’s more, it’s possible that a single wallet with 10 million ada could have single-handedly decided the result.
How do these voting patterns compare to what we are doing in Project Catalyst, and where do we go from here? Read the full analysis - with links and charts - at Lido Nation
3 Likes
really good article 
thanks a lot for putting this together @Stephanie_King & Lidonation Team 
would love to throw one correction… the article mentions:
“Attendees at a certain Zoom call voted for their preferred representatives by raising their hands, in the Zoom call, to cast a vote.”
The CCv1, CCv2 & CCv3 votes actually were casted via google forms which have been sent to the zoom live - call participants after candidates presented themself to the audience
Once again, really good article and quite nice how you bridged the Circle vote to Catalyst at general… good food for needed thoughts indeed
Thank you @Felix_Weber! If you don’t mind, I will make that correction directly in the article!
1 Like
yes sure, thanks a lot for the adjustments
for documentation, we fortunately can rely on the QA DAO documentation of the Catalyst Circle
google form vote outcomes can be found at:
Catalyst Circle version 1 results
Catalyst Circle version 2 results
Catalyst Circle version 3 results
@Felix_Weber THANKS, I will add those links to the article too! I was looking for them, and was only able to find the first link, but not the others! Seemed half-baked with just the first one, so I skipped it… <3 appreciate your help!
1 Like