I’ve enjoyed reading your comments. This is a thank you for all the valuable input so far. It’s been a few weeks since I got back from Japanese leg of the Asia Tour and could sit down and write a reply, and now that I have time, I’d like to accomplish two things:
- I suggest we focus the discussion in this thread on the core issue of proximity bias and determine if it’s a problem worth addressing. If we agree it is, we can consider solutions to tackle in a future CIP. To clarify, a Cardano Problem Statement identifies an issue, while a Cardano Improvement Proposal suggests a solution. My intention is to first establish if we have a consensus on the problem and its priority.
- In this post I will share the underlying framework of roles, sectors, and definitions that we used to create the map. This is the framework we validated with 20 Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs) in Cardano’s ecosystem—the set of definitions many of you have requested. I believe we could validate such a framework at scale through the improvement proposals. People could then build on top of that in various ways, such as with third-party data, on-chain census, or ecosystem distribution channels using something like Catalyst’s keychain to signify what is signal and noise etc… and more.
With that in mind, I agree with much of the feedback. However, I won’t be replying to suggestions for solutions because my intention is to first validate the problem and reach a consensus on the priority. Things like better visuals are solutions we’ll address later if we agree the problem is worth solving and it’s a priority.
As a starting point, please find attached a text list of the proposed Roles & Sectors, along with their suggested definitions. We’re sharing this now to help community members navigate the map, discuss the accuracy and completeness of the proposed roles, sectors, and definitions, and offer refinements and additional details. In the near future, Intersect will work on an Improvement Proposal to incorporate feedback and further develop the map.
Cardano Ecosystem Map - Roles & Sectors Definitions - Definitions v1.1.pdf (100.2 KB)
This framework is a step toward exploring the broader human interoperability challenges in our ecosystem. By developing a common language and set of standards, could we ensure we’re discussing and conceptualizing the same ideas—laying a foundation for effective representation and self-governance.
Let’s consider three key questions regarding proximity bias in Cardano:
- Is proximity bias a problem in our ecosystem? This occurs when we favor what’s familiar or close to us, potentially overlooking valuable but less visible parts of the ecosystem. For example; DReps must represent the entire ecosystem, not just their immediate circle. Does proximity bias limit their viewpoint, and potentially hinder their ability to make well-rounded decisions for Cardano?
- Is it a problem worth solving? We need to evaluate whether addressing proximity bias could significantly improve decision-making and representation within Cardano, I’d argue particularly for DReps.
- Is it a priority? Given the upcoming constitution ratification and the community’s increasing role in self-governance and treasury decisions, we must determine how urgent it is to develop a common language for self-description and ecosystem understanding.
Your insights on these questions will guide our community’s next steps in determining whether to invest time and resources in writing a Cardano Problem Statement in the improvement proposals GitHub - cardano-foundation/CIPs: Cardano Improvement Proposals (CIPs). If we do, I think it’d be great to co-author it in English, Japanese and Spanish.
Proximity Bias Problem
English Version
Japanese Version
