Should DReps Be Paid? A Conversation We Need to Have

Should DReps Be Compensated?

About a month ago, my friend visited while I was deep in a DRep budget workshop. She rolled her eyes and asked, “Is that one of your blockchain things again?”
“Yep,” I replied.
“So, what are you all up to this time? Trying to build a voting app for penguins or something?”
I laughed. “No, we’re reviewing proposals. People are requesting funding for different projects and we’re trying to make sense of them.”

“Nice. So what… do they pay you?”

I told her it was voluntary. We don’t get paid.

She blinked. “Hold on. You’re reading through budget proposals of people asking for money… what is that… millions of dollars I see in there… and you’re doing all that… for free?”
Then she burst out laughing.

“Girl, you’re in the wrong proposal. You should be writing one.”
I laughed too. Because when you put it that way, it does sound kind of wild.

But behind the humor was a real point. And it got me thinking about a question that keeps floating around in Cardano governance circles. Sometimes it’s whispered in Telegram chats and twitter spaces. Sometimes it pops up in calls and gets awkwardly brushed aside. And every now and then, someone dares to ask it out loud.

Should DReps be compensated?

It’s one of those sticky, uncomfortable questions that touches everything: values, fairness, decentralization, sustainability, and what kind of ecosystem we’re really trying to build. So let’s talk about it. Not to make a case one way or another, but to open up honest dialogue.

The Reality of Unpaid Governance

Here’s what being a DRep actually looks like: hours of reading complex proposals involving cryptography, business models, UI/UX design, and community impact. It’s listening to debates, voting with intention, showing up to meetings at crazy hours across time zones. It’s talking to project teams and trying to represent the values of people who trusted you with their votes, even when those values aren’t always clear.

It’s governance. And governance takes time and energy.

Think about it this way: imagine volunteers were asked to judge a high-stakes international cooking competition, but they weren’t trained chefs, didn’t get paid, and had to buy their own forks. Meanwhile, the contestants walked away with prize money and Michelin-star dreams. That’s kind of what it feels like.

Some people are fine doing this work for free. I am, for now. I recently started my own stake pool, Yam Pool, hoping it becomes a sustainable side hustle so I can keep contributing. But not everyone can do that. Not everyone has the flexibility or financial cushion to take on unpaid roles.

And if we don’t talk about that honestly, we risk building a governance system that only works for people who can afford to show up without support.

What Other Ecosystems Are Doing

Other chains have faced this same question. On Optimism, they pay delegates, but with accountability measures, transparency reports, and engagement requirements. MakerDAO pays contributors based on roles and responsibility. In Polkadot, participation is encouraged with direct rewards. These ecosystems are trying to make governance sustainable without making it exploitable.
Meanwhile, Cardano has taken a community-first approach. Most governance actors are volunteers. That’s beautiful in a way because it means people are contributing because they care. But it also raises real questions about longevity, inclusion, and who gets to contribute versus who has to step back.

The Case Against Payment

Let’s be honest about the risks. People say, “If you pay DReps, you’ll attract the wrong kind of people.” Opportunists. ADA farmers. Ghost voters. They’re right to worry. Right now, becoming a DRep is just creating a wallet and clicking a few buttons. There’s no identity layer, no friction. That’s great for decentralization, but it opens the door to abuse. One person could create multiple DReps and, if compensation were introduced, get paid several times for the same work.

There’s also no real accountability system. Who’s tracking whether DReps are showing up, reading proposals, making thoughtful decisions? We have dashboards, but no formal process for verifying contribution or performance.
Adding money without structure might attract people who aren’t here for the right reasons. That could shift our culture and dilute the values we’ve worked to uphold.

Maybe There’s a Middle Ground

Compensation opens the door to good and bad actors alike. But so does not compensating. Because then only people with time, money, and privilege can afford to participate. What happens to voices from small communities, from developing countries, from people who care but also need to survive? If we want diverse and dedicated representation, we have to think about sustainability.
We can’t pretend this role is “just clicking buttons.” If we keep saying that about DReps, that’s all it will eventually become, even for people who take it seriously now.
The answer might not be yes or no. Maybe it’s “not yet” or “not like this.”
We could explore optional compensation tied to clear metrics like participation, transparency, or community engagement. We could create recognition systems that reward trust and reputation instead of just tokens.
What matters is that we don’t ignore the question.

Where I Stand

I’m not going anywhere if we don’t get paid. I’ll keep doing the work because I believe in Cardano’s governance journey and that community-led innovation can work, even when it’s messy. But not everyone can afford to do that. Some amazing community members want to serve but can’t afford to. They’ve got jobs, families, rent to pay. Passion doesn’t erase economic reality.
And that should matter to us.
Because the kind of people we want shaping governance, the thoughtful, diverse, global voices, often don’t come from easy circumstances. If we want a decentralized future, we have to build systems that include, not exclude.
This isn’t a proposal or a manifesto. It’s a conversation starter. One I hope we can have with honesty, empathy, and open minds. Because if Cardano governance is going to grow into what it could be, we need to talk about the hard things.
This is one of them.

Questions for the Community

Would compensation improve the quality of DRep decisions, or would it compromise the integrity we’ve worked so hard to build? If we do introduce payment, how do we ensure it doesn’t create a governance elite? What model could work best for our unique ecosystem? And maybe most importantly: how do we build a governance system that’s both sustainable for participants and true to Cardano’s values?

Let’s talk.

3 Likes

Nice article @Maureen_Wepngong! It’s a hot topic indeed and one that I have also spent considerable time thinking about.

On one hand, DReps spend valuable time and produce real, meaningful work. Taking into consideration that most of us also have a “day job” and families, one can easily understand why spending all that time in governance (outside of work or family time, that is) should be compensated. On the other hand, we don’t want to make governance a big cash grab and I’m very much worried that this will happen.

The way I see this issue tackled is if we introduce some kind of “Proof of Work” notion for DReps. I don’t have a specific answer on how to implement that or what exactly that could be, but the gist of it is that the delegators should be in a position to periodically evaluate their representatives’ work quality (for example, by reading their rationales or assessing the time they spend on governance discussions, etc). DReps that are performing their duties well and do the work will be compensated, and those who don’t will lose delegation over time and will not be entitled to compensation.I know my “PoW” notion is very vague and, in fact, generates more questions than answers, but it could be a starting point for discussion maybe…

2 Likes

Transparent key results are crucial for rewarding DReps effectively. By establishing clear and measurable outcomes, we can ensure that rewards are tied to meaningful contributions, rather than just showing up. This approach allows us to capture the values we share as a community, such as inclusion, pursuit of excellence, and dedication to the governance process. With key results, we can recognize and reward behaviors that align with our values, rather than just compensating for presence. This, in turn, fosters a culture of accountability, where DReps are motivated to make a tangible impact, rather than just collecting rewards.

While it remains uncertain if & how this would be done, there’s a CIP recently posted which provides a voluntary means of compensating dReps. It’s specified so wallet & perhaps governance tooling providers can implement the CIP (“opting in” to this system) in advance of any compensation mechanism becoming universal (via “changes to the ledger”):

A CPS on the subject has also been put forward, which may eventually resolve into other CIPs on methods to compensate dReps as well as other governance actors, including potentially the voters themselves… currently waiting for the authors to decide upon that scope & update their document accordingly:

3 Likes

Thanks for reigniting this conversation with your beautiful article.

As a responsible governance actor, I believe all responsible governance actors like “yourself and others” must be compensated/incentivized for their work.

Your article highlights interesting points of view about family, jobs, etc., and that is indeed a great gesture of recognizing some of the sacrifices governance actors make to contribute towards Cardano Governance.

I think one of the most significant aspects, yet overlooked, is the gradual contribution to “bills” that governance actors barely talk about. Well, maybe some people think of it as a normal essential for the house, so with or without Cardano Governance, it must be there.

But the truth is, some responsible actors are losing their participatory grips due to factors like this and must be looked at carefully.

I think the idea of gauging the impact of “compensation” on “quality of DRep decisions” is what blinds the majority and raises the question of whether it is even necessary to incentivize DReps.

We have seen more than a thousand individual wallets register as DReps, yet, in reality, only about less than 100 are truly active - participate effectively beyond GAs. So I think the question is rather about DRep participation, and I believe that yes, if we put in place a proper mechanism to recognize and incentivize DReps, then meaningful participation can grow, which eventually leads to accessing quality decisions. From there, it becomes as it has always been, the responsibility of delegators to meaningfully punish DReps based on their decisions by moving stakes.

I believe this practice would rather strengthen than weaken the integrity of our governance model. It’s definitely early days yet, but we shouldn’t be scared to try out guided options that could work/fail. We will surely need to compensate governance actors sometime, and I believe the best moment to try is when the car is not yet at top speed on the highway.

I believe the best compensation model for us would be a clearly defined version of the third variant in Vangelis’ research. There’s certainly the need for a multipool reward structure that ensures equal compensation of all active DReps and responsible DReps. By “active DReps” here, I will define as DReps who are actively voting on governance actions, while “responsible DReps” refers to the DReps whose meaningful participation exceeds GAs. We can always think of parameters to sieve.

In this case, we are not defining “top DReps” by stake but by level of participation, and it will also ensure that people do not feel like they are elites of Cardano Governance simply because they are probably lucky to be loved and trusted with a huge stake, some of which are even from delegators who do not cross-check their activities often or periodically.

I think Cardano is blessed with “passionate experts” who have significant alignment with the mission and a desire to make a lasting impact. However, we need to bear in mind that we can’t keep these individuals forever if we don’t plan a long-term incentive structure. The passion, regardless of how thick it may be, could eventually wear out as the workload continues to compound - evident in the recent budget process.

I like your description a lot.

There is the need to appreciate responsible DReps as much as we desire to do for other governance actors like the CCs. Unfortunately, I do not buy the argument that CCs are mandated by the constitution to vote on governance action, whereas DReps perform such functions by will, as purported by some community members. I think that analogy is practically false, especially if the role of DReps is carefully studied.

Every responsible DRep knows that it is their duty to evaluate and vote on all governance actions and practices in that regard, and they’ll tell you how difficult it is to catch a good sleep knowing very well that a governance action is expiring the next day and they have not tackled it yet.

How would governance even proceed if DReps decide to not participate? For instance, during “no confidence” actions where the CC cannot vote. Resort to direct voting? I believe we need to think carefully about how we want to treat any major arm of Cardano Governance.

We have had several discussions about DRep incentivization, some heated, some not, but yet no action has really been taken except for the consultation gesture that was led by the Civics Committee, which I do applaud as probably the way that could lead to finally realizing something. Keenly waiting on the report, though. → @josedegamboa

1 Like