How dRep Hypocrisy is Quietly Re-Centralizing Cardano

[gintama]

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” — George Orwell

We were promised an era of “Liquid Democracy.” We were told that the Voltaire era would finally strip the “Founding Entities” (FEs) of their absolute power and hand the keys of the Treasury to the community.

Instead, one year into the dRep experiment, we aren’t living in a democracy. We are living in an organized hypocrisy. ### The “Rubber Stamp” Standard The most disgusting double standard currently rotting our ecosystem is the way dReps treat the “Big Three” (IOG, Foundation, Emurgo) versus how they treat the community.

• For the Founding Entities: Huge budgets—like the recent 350M ADA Net Change Limit extensions and the “Critical Integration Budget”—are passed with barely a whisper of dissent. Despite eight years of missed deadlines and failed promises from these entities, dReps vote “YES” in the middle of the night. No strict KPIs, no clawbacks, no accountability.
• For the Community: A community member with a proven track record asks for a fraction of that amount? They are met with a firing squad. They are scrutinized over every decimal point, every minor KPI, and then downvoted because they don’t have “the right connections.”

The “Yuta Pattern”: Performative Resistance

“Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are.” — Niccolò Machiavelli

Let’s talk about the top of the leaderboard. Yuta (Cardano Yoda) and other high-ranking dReps have mastered a new form of “Performative Governance.”

On social media, they are the “grillmasters.” They post “tough questions” for the FEs. They act like the community’s guard dog, barking loudly to gain followers and delegation. But look at the on-chain data: the bark never bites. When it’s time to actually hold the FEs accountable, these “negotiators” vote “YES” on every major power grab.

Is this negotiation, or is it Good Cop / Bad Cop? They provide a safe outlet for our frustration while ensuring the status quo never changes. They are adult men getting fooled like 5-year-old children—or worse, they are in on the game.

The Intersect Dictatorship

We were told Intersect would foster a diverse ecosystem of Member Based Organizations (MBOs). Instead, it has become a bottleneck of capture. Intersect “facilitates” snap elections and manages budgets, essentially grading its own homework.

Where are the independent MBOs? They were suppressed or absorbed. The dReps are terrified to vote “No” to Intersect because they’ve been told the alternative is “chaos.”

This is a lie. I work with the community every day. We have the talent, the engineers, and the vision to run this chain without the FEs breathing down our necks. The “chaos” they threaten us with is actually called freedom.

The “Soft-Power” Bribe

I don’t need to see a bank transfer to know when someone is compromised. When IOG members and Intersect staff can “cancel” a dRep by excluding them from the inner circle, that is a bribe of relevance. Our dReps are voting to protect their own seats at the table, not the ADA in your wallet.

“A hypocrite is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation.” — Adlai Stevenson I

My Challenge to the dReps

If you want to prove you aren’t a lapdog, vote NO on the next vague NCL budget. Demand a third-party audit of Intersect. Stop asking questions on X and start asking them with your voting key.

Until then, don’t call it decentralization. Call it what it is: Institutional Capture.

[mwatsimulamo]

While reading the article, I found some passages truly interesting, while others rely on examples that sometimes exceed my own understanding.

That being said, I personally believe that the transition toward a truly mature on-chain governance takes time. Even if you raise several points suggesting that Intersect might not fully foster an effective democracy, I don’t believe this can be stated in a radical or definitive way. We all witnessed the democratic process that led to the adoption of the Cardano Constitution. More recently, we can observe that Project Catalyst, as well as other major institutions within the Cardano ecosystem, submitted funding requests that was evaluated by the community and voted on by dReps—which was clearly not the case before.

From a governance standpoint, Intersect is at least attempting to play a role in transparency by broadcasting information, calling for applications, and allowing ADA holders to elect their representatives. This contributes, in principle, to a more decentralized structure and reinforces the idea of a community-led organization rather than a closed circle.

However, I acknowledge that your article highlights essential and legitimate points regarding the form of democracy expected in the Voltaire era. Specifically, the fact that Intersect manages the treasury while being involved in its own evaluation mechanisms raises an important question that deserves serious debate. As a dRep, and undoubtedly more experienced, you may have additional information or clarifications that you could share with us on this subject, and I sincerely appreciate the way you address the different aspects in this post.

To conclude, I would like to clarify that these comments represent only my personal point of view, based both on your article and on what I observe as an active and committed member of the Cardano ecosystem.

Thank you for raising such a relevant and stimulating topic. It is through critical yet measured discussions that the ecosystem will be able to continue evolving in a healthy way.