THE COMMUNITY WANTS TO KNOW: EPISODE 4 TRANSCRIPT
Guest: Dave (Discover Cardano)
Drep Id: Drep1y2s6uvp5lq9dlp6vxydhmcpq4yr68v9sxkyu8agyzmw0kps2t8ugh
Date: Friday, March 13, 2026
[Introduction]
Host: Good morning Cardano. Today it’s Friday, March 13th, and we have a very unique guest on the hot seat today. He joined as a DRep last year in April 2025 during the budget session and also had a marketing proposal for treasury withdrawal. Let’s welcome Dave, also the owner of Discover Cardano. Welcome, Dave.
Dave: Welcome. Thank you for having me. How are you?
Host: I’m good. How’s Friday going for you?
Dave: It’s just started for me. It’s 10:00 a.m. So, yeah, the sun is out here in the UK, but it’s quite windy. It feels like the start of spring. We’ve got flowers starting to appear on the bushes. That’s good.
[DRep Profile and Metadata]
Host: It seems like nice weather. Let’s make it a bit hot. Let’s move into your DRep category—your direct visuals. The first thing that I find curious is that I was checking your DRep profile and I was not able to find any motivation, objectives, or qualifications. Why did you not write any of these things?
Dave: So, when I set up my DRep account originally, it was just for me to do it privately. There were a couple of things that happened. One, I didn’t really want to promote my DRep account and ask people to delegate at that stage because I wasn’t sure whether or not it would be something that I wanted to do full-time—well, not full-time, but carry on doing. And the other thing was, because I knew I was going to be putting in a proposal for Treasury funding, I didn’t feel like the right thing to do was to start trying to ask people to delegate to me whilst also putting in a Treasury funding request.
Host: So you wanted to keep it in the background while your main focus was to promote Cardano so that you bring people into the game, rather than taking an active part at that point in governance and giving people the view that there is a clear conflict of interest? You wanted to keep it simple for people to understand you.
Dave: Yeah. I mean, even now really, I haven’t updated any of the metadata because I wanted to set up the account and just get used to being a DRep and understand how much involvement there’d need to be before I started asking people to delegate to me. That was obviously last year. This year, I’ve been considering actually updating my account and publishing it—saying to people, “This is what I stand for. This is what I’m trying to achieve.” So if you feel like I align with how you want your ADA to be voting, feel free to use me as an outlet.
It was very much a case where I was very interested in the DRep idea. I still don’t think we’ve necessarily nailed an effective way to actually deploy the DReps when it comes to decision-making personally. So, at the moment, I’m very much like a spectator in it, but I’m also participating and learning along the way, if that makes sense.
[On-Chain Stats and Technical Issues]
Host: Okay. So you are taking baby steps to becoming a full-fledged DRep soon, hopefully. Let me just give some of the on-chain stats that we have about you for the people. First of all, let’s look at your voting power. At the peak, you had almost 120k ADA delegated to you, and today you hold just a tenth of that—19,000 ADA. Your participation as a DRep has been very minimal; you just cast 20 votes, and some of those are recent. Your rationale rate has been 45%—meaning out of 20 votes, only nine have a rationale. Your delegators have been constant around seven. But you have had an 83% loss in delegated ADA. Since you have not actively promoted yourself, where did this 100k ADA suddenly come from and go to? Was it your personal funds or someone you know?
Dave: I had no idea that I had at some point 120,000 ADA delegated to me. As far as I’m aware, there are three people that had my DRep key. I guess one of those guys may have moved funds in and out. I have no idea. I’ve not been tracking it because I’ve not been actively promoting it at this stage. But it’s certainly not my own funds. I wish I had 120,000 ADA at some point.
It’s interesting to know. There have obviously been a couple of people, like Nathan and a few others, that just said, “Can we delegate? We want you to have our ADA to vote.” So, I didn’t have any idea until you just said that one of those guys at some point must have had 100,000 ADA and then moved it out.
Regarding the participation and rationale—this is part of wanting to get used to the tooling and understand everything. What actually happened is I was using the Eternal browser to submit votes. At the beginning, there were a few where you could just write a rationale and it would sort out the links. Then I started playing with the Eternal one because it seemed easier. What I didn’t realize at the time was that it’s a two-step submission process with Eternal.
There were five or six governance actions—probably around October or November last year—where I filled in my votes and left a rationale. I thought I’d submitted them. About a month ago, I went back onto Eternal to vote on the latest trench and it kept giving me an error. I realized those four or five proposals I thought I’d submitted last October hadn’t gone through; there was another step to the process before it went on-chain. There’s no way on the browser to actually get rid of those expired votes.
[Voting Behavior: Pentad and Contradictions]
Host: Okay, so there were some technical problems that impacted your voting experience. Now let’s move on to your voting behavior. I found a contradiction: you voted No on the 70 million Info Action (the Pentad), but then you voted Yes on the 70 million Treasury Withdrawal. In the Info Action, you wrote that it was vague, ambiguous, and had no written responsibility if it fails. Why the contradiction?
Dave: I think I got the whole question. On the Info Action, I originally voted No because I feel that at the Info Action stage, it’s the opportunity for DReps to give feedback to the proposer so they can make adjustments. When I voted No—and I think I tweeted about this—I put in the rationale that I’m not against the Pentad as proposers and I’m not against what they’re trying to achieve. But when I read the proposal, there was a lot of stuff they could have added which was missing. I was worried it was going to cause drama because they could have done a better job of communicating and managing expectations.
At the Info Action stage, voting No is a clear indicator to the proposer to please read the rationale and understand where I’m coming from. If you vote Yes, most people are not even bothered about the rationale. They normally go to the “Nos” first.
The reason I voted Yes for the actual withdrawal was because, during the first stage, I put my stake in the ground to say, “I need you guys to pay attention to this.” But when I saw other people’s rationales and what the majority of DReps were thinking, we had a bit more information about why things were done the way they were. I was comfortable by that stage to say, “Okay, fine. Let’s go for it.”
DReps are being asked to vote as quickly as possible, but often the Info Action is the first time proposers are communicating the proposal in full. DReps are not experts in every field; they need to listen. It’s a Catch-22: they want you to participate early, but it takes time to disseminate the information.
[Constitution and Info Actions]
Host: So you’re saying at the Info Action stage, you wanted to make them accountable, and by the Treasury Withdrawal, you were somewhat satisfied. You see Info Actions as a negotiation place while the withdrawal is where the real action takes place?
Dave: Yes. I wouldn’t say negotiation; I would say it’s optimization. The whole point of the Info Action is to have that feedback, make changes, and then everything is optimized and set in stone for the actual Treasury Withdrawal.
Host: The community wants to know right now: the current Constitution that passed (2.4), which you voted Yes on, has no need for an Info Action. It just has a direct Treasury Withdrawal. How do you see that?
Dave: This ties into what we were just talking about. For me, I felt like the Budget Info Action as it stood wasn’t fulfilling the purpose I expected. There still isn’t a solidified understanding of what the purpose and procedure is for Info Actions.
I felt like we weren’t going to lose too much by removing it because it’s a living document; you can always put it back in or put something different in later. I thought rather than just constantly talking about it, let’s go down that route and support this version where there’s no Info Action. It might help focus minds on solidifying the whole process rather than just constantly moaning about something. We should have already been socializing these things off-chain anyway.
Host: So then let’s come to the main point: why did you vote Yes on Constitution 2.4?
Dave: The main reason is I felt it needed to be streamlined. One of the big things for me is that the Constitutional Committee’s role should just be: “Are these proposals constitutional?” They are like auditors. I think a lot of what was done was to clarify and solidify those roles and responsibilities. I was happy to give it a go. I didn’t think it was the perfect document—I was actually trying to do a little bit of work on it myself separately—but when I saw the direction this was going, I was fine with it.
[2030 Vision and Weaponization]
Host: Now let’s see. Regarding the 2030 Vision Info Action by the Product Committee, you voted No. On the other side, you got Treasury funds to market Cardano—selling Cardano at events. Doesn’t it contradict that you do not agree with the Vision, but since you got paid by the Treasury, you are doing the work?
Dave: I think that question exactly typifies why I voted No. I felt the 2030 Vision was a document being created just to get people to agree on it, and then we would see Treasury withdrawals using that document as a reason to say, “This is why our proposal needs funding.” Then, when someone votes No, they will say, “You shouldn’t be voting No because it fits the requirements of the 2030 Vision.” I felt like it could be weaponized.
It’s not a contradiction for me to want to take the blockchain forward and not like the premise of the 2030 Vision roadmap. I see where it’s going and it’s already being used as a justification for things it wasn’t intended for. For example, in the Liquid voting thing for the Knight token, they put in there that keeping a huge amount of Knight for themselves aligns with the 2030 Vision. They are using the Vision to justify taking assets owned by other people to boost TVL figures. This is what I thought was going to happen from the beginning, and why the risks outweighed the benefits.
[Proposer Experience and Funding]
Host: The community wants to know your experience as a proposer. How did you start? Who did you approach?
Dave: I found the process frustrating, but less frustrating than it could have been for a first attempt. Once we got funded, working with the Intersect team as administrators has been great. They’ve been really good through the Slack channels.
I started socializing the idea in February of last year via Discord and Twitter Spaces. I looked for feedback from the community and kept to my principles. Over time, we refined the proposal. We removed the community meetups because Rare Evo was putting in a proposal for that and they were better suited for it.
During the Ekklesia vote, even though Emurgo and CF voted No, I was fortunate that others like UT voted Yes. He was very engaging and wanted to know about KPIs. When it got to the 67% threshold, I had to remove four events to go from 10 down to six. I wasn’t expecting to get through, to be honest. I woke up one morning to 99+ notifications and saw the community had rallied behind it. I definitely feel the burden of weight to make this a success because I’ve never been funded before. I’ve spent a pretty penny out of my own pocket over the last three years having stands for Cardano where I could. It meant a lot that the community recognized that.
[DRep Roles and Principles]
Host: Do you think DReps who have real-life experience in certain roles should approach the Treasury to give services at a subsidized cost, rather than just being on a salary to act as a DRep?
Dave: That’s a very interesting question. I would encourage anyone—don’t let being a DRep stop you if you can bring value to the community. But be very mindful of your personal principles and ethics.
The best thing you can do as a DRep is have principles and be consistent with them. Your delegators need stability; they don’t want to have to change DReps every few months because the person they chose voted in a way they absolutely abhor. Stick to your principles. And if you happen to have 700 million in voting power, you’ve got to think about the public perception. Don’t s*** on the f****** principles and don’t do things that are going to weaken those principles for others in the blockchain.
[Public Perception and External Views]
Host: You’re meeting people at events. Do people from the outside really watch our drama and governance every day?
Dave: I think the people looking at Cardano from the outside are the ones trying to find reasons to fault Cardano. The more prominent you are, the more you should make sure that the opportunities for people to find those negatives are minimized. Most people open to the idea of Cardano only really aware of the drama when someone manages to amplify a subject and spin it in a way to make people aware of it. Most people probably only hear about one or two bad things every now and then when it leaves our little bubble.
[Future Plans and Conclusion]
Host: Will you at some point take an active role in Cardano governance beyond being a DRep?
Dave: My current plan is to update the metadata for my DRep key by May—changing it to “Discover Cardano”—and start being more active in pushing my stance and principles. I did consider applying to the Intersect marketing committee, but I wasn’t successful. Probably a good thing; I would have gotten very frustrated because the current setup would have hampered what I was hoping to achieve.
I misunderstood your question earlier about governance beyond DReps. I will obviously be more active. You’ll notice in my voting history that the last few votes link to my GitHub for rationale. Big shout out to Heppy Paul for walking me through that process, which is when I found out my previous six votes never actually submitted. I’m a lot more confident now in being able to do a good job as a DRep.
Host: And that’s from our DRep for today. Dave, that concludes our dive into the ledger and the rationale. We 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!
Dave: Thank you for having me. Thank you for listening, everyone.
Space link - https://x.com/silversoul8668/status/2032396203045126328?s=20
Episode 3 - The Community Wants to Know: Episode 3 [Transcript]
X Thread link - https://x.com/silversoul8668/status/2032444897459048808?s=20