Guest: Cerkoryn (24.6M ADA Voting Power)
Drep Id: drep1yglrf4el8gghum239fggvfrau25k2576y4dvcz65r2ukj8sqpsc2k
Host: Today we are putting Cerkoryn on the Hot Seat. He registered on September 2, 2024, making him one of the earliest DReps in the system. He currently holds 24.6 million ADA in voting power, which is roughly 0.42% of the total active voting power. His engagement rate is exceptionally high at 85.9%, with a rationale rate of 98.6%.
Looking at his background, Cerkoryn holds dual bachelor’s degrees in Psychology and Cybersecurity. He is a member of Intersect, serves on the Technical Steering Committee, and is a recipient of Cardano Foundation delegation. His core philosophy states: “Sound money free from the control of a handful of elites, enhancing freedom for everyone.” I want the community to remember that line. Cerkoryn, have you changed this philosophy since you started?
Cerkoryn: No, I’d say it’s exactly the same. The only thing that has evolved is my view on Leios. I am thoroughly impressed with Linear Leios, but I’m on the fence about whether “Full Leios” will ever be needed, especially if it requires sacrificing determinism. Cardano’s biggest benefit is being fully deterministic. If we have to carve out exceptions to that to achieve full Leios, I’m not convinced it’s worth it.
Host: Let’s talk about your rationales. You have a 98.6% rate, which is not easy. Do you use AI to summarize governance actions and write these, or do you actually read every single one?
Cerkoryn: I read every single governance action, but I do use AI a lot. I’ll read through the entire thing, form my own opinions, and jot down notes—just scratchpad garbage, really. Then I’ll sometimes use AI to help me make sense of my thoughts and put them into a more presentable format so I can say what I’m thinking clearly, because I’m often bad with words.
Host: I found that you used the exact same rationale for Constitution 2.3 and 2.4. Since you copy-pasted, did you actually read 2.4? What if there were changes you didn’t approve of?
Cerkoryn: Yes, I read it both times. My rationale didn’t change because I believe the removal of the Treasury Withdrawal Budget action was a huge win. There were some minor changes between the iterations, but as long as it’s a step improvement over the previous version, I think we’re moving in the right direction. I probably did copy and paste the rationale, but I noted what changed.
Host: When you voted “Yes” on Constitution 2.4 and it was ratified, did you consider the chaos it would bring to existing Constitutional Committee (CC) members and live actions like the stablecoin DeFi liquidity proposal?
Cerkoryn: It crossed my mind, but my job as a DRep is not to interpret the Constitution—that’s the Constitutional Committee’s job. My job when voting on a new constitution is to decide if it is an improvement over the previous one. I didn’t know how the CC was going to vote or how it would affect other proposals, so I left that to them.
Host: Regarding the Net Change Limits (NCL) last year, you voted NO on 350M, 300M, and 250M ADA. You voted YES on the 200M limit because you thought that was the optimum expense. However, the total “Yes” votes you put on treasury withdrawals adds up to 276 million ADA. Why did you not stand by your 200M limit?
Cerkoryn: Ultimately, because my 200M option didn’t win. I wanted a lower cap to force competition for costs, but governance is politics. Sometimes I have to vote on what is likely to have the most impact rather than strictly what I want.
Host: But you voted “Yes” on the 70M Pentad budget and the Snek loan. You could have voted “Abstain” or “No” to stay closer to your 200M limit. Why choose “Yes”?
Cerkoryn: A couple of reasons. The Snek vote was a loan, so it’s not strictly a “spend.” We expect a return on that. The DeFi liquidity proposal is also not strictly a spend; it’s a withdrawal into a smart contract. So, maybe 200M is what I was comfortable spending, but I’m okay with lending a bit above that cap.
Host: You’ve approved massive budgets for IOG and Catalyst, but you Abstained on roughly 18 community proposals (Pallas, Blockfrost, etc.), telling them to “go to Catalyst.” Do you believe only the Founding Entities can handle the work?
Cerkoryn: When I vote “Abstain,” it’s a matter of priorities. Highest priorities are a “Yes.” Things I’m on the fence about are “Abstain.” I believe Catalyst should be for innovation and startups, Builder DAO for scaling, and tools/maintenance should go through the Intersect Open Source Committee (OSC). Treasury withdrawals are for everything that doesn’t fall cleanly into those buckets.
Host: In 2025, you approved the Amaru node for 1.5M ADA. In 2026, the ask jumped to 10 million ADA and you used the same rationale. Is this just blind belief? If they ask for 100M next year, will you still vote “Yes”?
Cerkoryn: Amaru is my highest priority as a DRep. They are building an entire new node. Last year, they asked for 1M to rebuild Cardano—to me, that’s an easy “Yes.” They were transparent and even returned funds to the treasury. When they submitted a second one for more ADA, I was happy to approve it. It’s critical to have node diversity so we aren’t overly dependent on the current ledger team that maintains the Haskell node.
Host: You have a 98% rationale rate, but for the 11 million ADA Tweag withdrawal, you gave zero rationale. Why is that?
Cerkoryn: I was at Rare Evo, and there were roughly 40 proposals on-chain at the same time. I didn’t realize they could be ratified so fast. I was rushing to get the vote in before the ratification in 10 minutes. I just quickly voted “Yes” and didn’t have time to provide a rationale before the window closed.
Host: So for 11 million ADA, you just hit “Yes” because you were in a hurry? If you were to give a rationale now, what would it be?
Cerkoryn: They were working on Ouroboros Peras, which will be a huge benefit to finality times. It complemented the IOG core engineering proposal, so it was an easy “Yes.”
Host: A community member asked: why do you support IOG so much on the big research budgets?
Cerkoryn: The answer is because most of what we know on Cardano is because of IOG. Whether we like it or not, we are currently dependent on them. They are the most capable team as it stands for maintenance of the core node and the ledger. Their proposals have been worthwhile for allocating treasury funds.
Host: The chain load today is only 7-8%. Revenue is low. Most of your votes are for technical infrastructure. At what point do we focus on bringing in business and growing the community?
Cerkoryn: That’s the million-dollar question. How do we get more transactions? I’ve given extensive feedback to the Product Committees on this. In crypto, very few things have found true Product Market Fit. I think Cardano is well-positioned for DeFi credit markets. My opinion is that having the infrastructure ready is necessary to onboard those use cases.
Host: Thank you for joining us. This concludes our audit for Episode 2. We have analyzed the 276 million ADA in withdrawals and heard the rationales. My role isn’t to tell you how to think, but to ensure the data is visible. The power to delegate or move to No Confidence is yours.
X space link - https://x.com/silversoul8668/status/2026693182298403307?s=20
Episode 1 link - The Community Wants to Know: Episode 1 [Transcript]
X thread link - https://x.com/silversoul8668/status/2027234678483427397?s=20