Guest: WADA Drep / Nana Safo (13.81M ADA Voting Power)
Drep Id: drep1y2jnqfamg4tq5aepxhggzhqg7pq5gunph4wypkyh9q3qt2cru5m2j
Host: Our guest on the Hot Seat today is Nana Safo, the lead for the WADA DRep committee. Welcome to the stage. Nana registered on October 2, 2024, as one of the pioneer DReps of the Voltaire era. Today, he represents 13.81M ADA with 95 delegators. His engagement is high: 93% participation, 80 votes cast, and a rationale rate of 98.8%. How are you feeling today, Nana?
Nana: Hi, I’m doing well. It’s been a lot of work and many meetings, but I’m glad to be here.
Host: Good to hear. Your motivation states you want to amplify underrepresented voices and increase participation in Africa. Is it just you, or a group?
Nana: WADA DRep is a committee. There are individuals in the background assessing proposals, but I am the public face. The rest currently choose to remain anonymous to avoid outside influence during deliberations. We keep an internal tracker for every governance action, and while those documents are currently behind closed doors, we plan to expose them to the community in the future.
Host: You have great metrics, but how do you engage your 95 delegators?
Nana: This is the million-dollar question. We tried using polling tools like WithTools and Tempo.vote, but we didn’t get much response. The reality is that people delegate because they don’t have the time to do the research themselves. Many are likely delegating just to keep their staking rewards active—the “penalty” for not participating is a major factor. Because we don’t always know who our delegators are, we plan to start “Governance Sessions” on X to discuss actions with the wider community.
Host: Let’s talk about the Treasury. You used the same rationale for 39 different withdrawals last year. How can a ₳99k project and a ₳96M withdrawal for IOG have the same rationale?
Nana: We used a generic rationale because we were involved in the budget process from the beginning. We had firsthand knowledge of these projects through Intersect’s drafting stages. We didn’t feel the need to submit 39 individual rationales when we had already performed prior assessments. While the impact of a 96M project and a 99k project varies, we believe both bring value that the ecosystem needs. Going forward, we will consider integrating more specific individual rationales for clarity.
Host: You voted “Yes” on several Info Actions that bring your total supported spending to over ₳400M, yet you claim to be “conservative” with a ₳280M limit. How do you reconcile this?
Nana: We differentiate between Info Actions and Treasury Withdrawals. We might support an Info Action because the idea is good, but when it comes to the actual Withdrawal, we are much stricter to stay within our budget. For 2025, our actual withdrawals were around ₳277M, which is below our limit.
Host: But you didn’t vote on the ₳70M Pentad withdrawal. Why?
Nana: We actually missed that deadline. The committee was busy organizing the CATS 2026 event. We thought we had more time, but the threshold was met before we could cast our vote. It escaped us. We hope to have a better multitasking approach in the future.
Host: Do you check the impact of the money you’ve already approved? Projects like Catalyst have been put on hold, and some are behind schedule.
Nana: We check “in a while” via the Treasury Tracker. It is unfortunate that some projects are dragging their feet. In our rationales, we stated that we are trusting Intersect to act as the administrator and keep a close eye on these projects to ensure they deliver milestones before funds are released. Regarding Catalyst, the pause of Funds 15 and 16 is negative news for proposers, but a “positive” for the Treasury because unspent funds are returned.
Host: You voted NO on CC compensation and NO on adding a buffer member (Christina) to prevent a governance shutdown. Why block the safety of the system?
Nana: We voted No on compensation because we believe in “Governance Equity.” We don’t think one body (the CC) should be paid in isolation while DReps and SPOs—who do equally vital work—are not. We want a unified, fair payment system for everyone. As for the 8th CC member, we respected the candidate, but we wanted a more deliberate process rather than just adding a buffer.
Here is the polished, professional, and raw version of the Episode 3 Audit (Part 2). I have corrected the spelling, grammar, and sentence structure while preserving the authentic flow of the conversation and the “Inquisitor” vs. “DRep” dynamic.
Host: Welcome back. We were discussing the Constitutional Committee (CC). Why did you vote in a seemingly contradictory way—denying CC compensation while also voting against a “buffer” member for the community?
Nana: We stand by our position. The constitution states that governance parties may be compensated. However, we believe that if we do this as an ecosystem, we need proper mechanisms that recognize all parties—DReps, SPOs, and the CC. One party shouldn’t enjoy benefits while others work for nothing. We believe that over time, discussions about compensating DReps have faced pushback. We didn’t want to support a single party ahead of the rest, as that makes people disengaged or furious with the process. While the CC’s work is vital, so is the work of DReps. We want to avoid a situation where we incentivize one and ignore the others.
Host: But the CC members are elected by the people to uphold the constitution, whereas DReps and SPOs are voluntary roles. SPOs already have an incentive via minting blocks. DReps chose to stand up. Doesn’t paying voluntary roles undermine the spirit of volunteering, compared to an elected role with a mandate?
Nana: It’s a matter of perspective. People willingly decide to act as DReps, but they are doing the work that delegators don’t have the time or capacity to do. Delegating is essentially voting an individual in to act on your behalf. We need to look beyond the word “willingly” and look at what it actually takes to be an effective DRep. Many register and then go silent because the work—finding delegators, assessing actions, writing rationales—is actual work that needs appreciation. We believe in building a structured mechanism where all actors are recognized. If a mechanism is introduced that rewards everyone fairly, we wouldn’t hesitate to support it.
Host: Regarding Christina (the proposed 8th CC member), you acknowledged she is high-quality, yet you voted NO on adding her as a buffer to prevent governance shutdowns. Why?
Nana: We truly appreciate Christina’s contributions. We actually voted for her during the initial CC election. However, our “No” vote on the governance action was because we supported the original Intersect CC election process and believed in those results. We also had internal concerns: if you have eight members, what happens in the event of a tie vote? We didn’t have enough answers on how a tie-breaker would work, so we didn’t feel comfortable voting “Yes” on an even-numbered committee size.
Host: Let’s talk about the Constitution. You voted NO on 2.0 because the process lacked traction, ABSTAINED on 2.3, and finally voted YES on 2.4. My question is about representation. The first constitution in Nairobi had thousands of participants. Constitution 2.4 seemingly only had 200–250 active participants, mostly DReps. How does a constitution shaped by 200 people uphold the background of millions of ADA holders compared to the thousands who participated originally?
Nana: It is a very interesting question. We were very reserved about this amendment process. While we might not have thousands of participants like we did for the Constitutional Convention, we live in a digital world where engagement is often very difficult and discouragingly low. However, once you get a good “sample size” with a variety of expertise, you can proceed. We saw that the author (Juuta) took our feedback into account for version 2.4.
We also recommended setting up a “Constitutional Amendment Working Group” within the Civic Committee to draft a proper, permanent process for future amendments. We didn’t want to block 2.4 because the changes were useful—for instance, removing the “Info Budget” to lessen the burden on the CC and DReps. We believe this is a step forward in creating a template that anyone with 100k ADA can eventually follow to propose changes in a structured way.
Host: I have to cut you here as we’ve reached our one-hour limit. You believe the current constitution has a sufficient sample size to move forward while the process is refined for the future.
And my friends, that concludes our deep dive into the ledger and the rationales. We have brought the data to the light and put the tough questions on the table. Not for the sake of the person, but for the sake of the protocol.
The evidence is now in your hands. As a delegator, you are the final judge. You have the power. You have the ADA. And now you have the facts. Use them. I am your host. See you at the next episode of The Community Wants to Know with a new guest on the Hot Seat.
Nana: Thank you for having me. Let’s build Cardano together.
X space link - https://x.com/silversoul8668/status/2028852301981770220?s=20 (part 1 )
https://x.com/silversoul8668/status/2029192763980562836?s=20 (part 2 )
Episode 2 link - The Community Wants to Know: Episode 2 [Transcript]