On 14 July 2026, the Cardano Foundation hosted a Cardano Governance Workshop in Tokyo to explore how to improve the efficiency of Cardano governance. We would like to thank the more than 25 DReps and community members who joined us to share their thoughts and opinions.
We’d like to now provide a recap of what the group shared, voted for, and where the discussions landed, including which aspects of the discussion divided the group or on which points they remained unconvinced.
All physical input (worksheets, sticky notes, and the two posters) was photographed and transcribed. The vote counts below come from the in-room dot vote and are directional rather than exact.
What we set out to do
The workshop tested a single proposition: Cardano would benefit from a shared, neutral, moderated space for governance discussions, with the specific tooling to be decided by an on-chain DRep vote, all achievable in 2026 without constitutional or mainnet changes. The group spent the session first validating the problem, then prioritising the characteristics such a space would need, and finally measuring where the room actually stood.
Current challenges faced by DReps
Before discussing any solution, participants brainstormed what consumes their time and energy as DReps. Six themes emerged.
The most common was information overload and the cost of due diligence. The information exists; the drain arises from the excessive time required to filter and verify it. As one note put it, they have to access gov.tools just to confirm a governance action exists, then research everything unfamiliar from scratch, which takes time.
Next was the sheer volume of proposals, leading to decision fatigue. One participant framed it sharply: Too many proposals and votes place a disproportionate weight on governance relative to economic pragmatism. Ultimately, the opportunity cost of evaluating every proposal far outweighs its actual or perceived utility.
Third, the absence of a shared strategic direction. In the words of one note, without a strategic roadmap “all proposals are equally valid and invalid at the same time.” This theme returned multiple times, including in the vote (see below).
Fourth, low-quality discourse on social media. Discussion on X was described as unstructured, often malicious in tone, and prone to non-experts opining on topics they do not understand. This was the strongest argument in the room in favour of a neutral, moderated space.
Fifth, and specific to the Japanese community in the room, the language barrier. Much governance information is English-first and several within the Japanese community are not familiar with the language. Participants also noted that, even when translations to Japanese are available, they often have errors or strange phrasing that makes it difficult to understand the information. This is a structural disadvantage worth addressing directly.
Sixth, the weight of individual responsibility. DReps feel exposed and unsupported when drafting vote rationales, debating DReps or community members with opposing views, or exercising leadership alone.
Which core properties of a community discussion space matter most
Following the input on what drains DReps, we presented the six initial properties the Cardano Foundation had previously explored in its forum post.
| # | Core Property | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | On-chain authentication | Participant authentication using on-chain data to ensure that access to the space is restricted to ada holders, DReps, SPOs, and CC members. |
| 2 | Independent moderation | Independent third-party moderation to ensure constructive dialogue and to avoid bias wherever possible. |
| 3 | Public visibility and retention | Visibility and retention of public channels to promote transparent discussions, preserve historical data, and promote the widest possible dissemination of information. |
| 4 | Discoverability | Discoverability to ensure relevant discussions and conclusions can be found. |
| 5 | Open standards | Usage of open standards and interoperable tooling to avoid vendor lock-in and enable the development of auxiliary tooling. |
| 6 | Open access and self-hosted | Open access and self-hosting to guarantee the space remains inclusive and available in the future. |
Participants ranked the properties using green dots (“most important”) and red dots (“I have concerns”). Each participant could place up to three green dots and one red dot; placing all was not mandatory. Counts are approximate.
| Property | Green (most important) | Red (concern) | Read |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discoverability / 検索性 | 10 | 1 | Clear favourite |
| On-chain authentication / オンチェーン認証 | 10 | 3 | Strong, some dissent |
| Public visibility & retention / 公開性と記録保存 | 8 | 1 | Strong |
| Open standards / オープン標準 | 4 | 1 | Moderate |
| Independent moderation / 独立したモデレーション | 4 | 6 | Polarising |
| Open access & self-hosted / オープンアクセスと自主ホスティング | 0 | 5 | Deprioritised |
The participants’ priorities became clear: They want a space where current and past information is easily discoverable, that keeps a durable public record, and that verifies who is participating. These three top the list and draw almost no concern.
Two properties were contested:
- Independent moderation drew the most concern, with modest support but the highest red count. This reflects a real worry about neutrality and who decides what gets moderated. It also highlights the need for further discussion about how moderation should work and who should be responsible for it.
- Open access and self-hosting received no “most important” votes but gathered heavy concern, consistent with the room’s deeper wish for one trusted home rather than a fragmented, self-hosted patchwork.
Participants also added two missing properties on stickies: ease of use and alignment with long-term Cardano goals. The former speaks to the importance of a seamless user experience and a low barrier to entry. The latter is the strategic-direction gap of the Cardano ecosystem resurfacing again.
Where the group stands (consensus check)
Near the end of the workshop, after the core-properties vote, participants were asked about their current stance on the discussion space. Each placed one dot on a five-point scale for the statement “A shared, neutral discussion space should be created, and the tooling decided by an on-chain DRep vote.”
| Agreement Scale | Number of Votes |
|---|---|
| 5. Strongly agree, I’ll help build it | 0 |
| 4. Agree | 1 |
| 3. Agree with conditions (write them on a sticky) | 2 |
| 2. Concerns (write them on a sticky) | 6 |
| 1. Disagree, talk to me | 2 |
The distribution shows concern outweighing support. The center of gravity sat on “concerns,” no participant moved to “strongly agree, I’ll help build it,” and a minority disagreed outright and asked to talk it through.
Against the workshop’s own stated precondition – that a discussion space only makes sense with genuine DRep buy-in –, it becomes clear that the interest is real but conditional, and a meaningful minority is not yet convinced. The workshop was designed exactly to surface this type of signal.
Ideas the discussion generated
The most developed idea, which emerged independently at more than one table, was AI- and expert-assisted pre-filtering of proposals. Variations included:
- using several AI agents to evaluate each proposal independently and surfacing only those that pass all of them;
- giving AI multiple scoring roles that must all pass before a DRep spends attention (thus introducing a human in the loop);
- and commissioning an expert-built primary-evaluation screen.
Participants also addressed the topic of moderation. The group stipulated that whomever is charged with running such a filter, whether a paid third party or otherwise, must be acknowledged by the community as fair and independent in their approach and implementation. This is the most concrete condition the room offered for making the proposal volume manageable.
A second concrete design idea was transparency of proposer contact: Make all individual outreach from proposers to a DRep visible to every DRep, thus directly addressing the lobbying and information-asymmetry problem.
A third cluster concerned lightweight, faction-free norms: Stickies mentioned “no party, no drama,” “no additional rules,” and a request for an anonymous-voting option, alongside recurring skepticism about coalition incentives and game theory.
Tensions to resolve openly
Two tensions identified during the workshop are worth highlighting:
- Identity versus anonymity: On-chain authentication to participate in the space was a top priority, yet a participant asked for anonymous voting. The room appears to want verified participants but potentially unlinkable votes, which presents a real design constraint.
- Moderation versus neutrality: The room disliked toxic social-media discourse – an argument for moderation – but flagged independent moderation as its biggest concern and asked for “no additional rules.” Any moderation must read as neutral and lightweight, not as an authority.
What happens next
The Cardano Foundation will continue to collect input from the DReps and wider Cardano community on the core properties and structure of the discussion space. The tooling decision itself is intended to go to an on-chain DRep vote.
We will keep the community updated as this workstream progresses, and we plan to open the conversation to the wider community through follow-up online sessions across different time zones.