거버넌스 제안 상세
제안서 상세 내용과 투표 현황을 확인하세요.
한글 버전
- 에이다는 어떤 메커니즘이 효과가 있는지, 비용이 얼마나 드는지, 누가 결과에 책임을 져야 하는지에 대한 공통의 근거 없이 거버넌스 인센티브에 대한 중대한 결정을 앞두고 있음.
- 본 프로젝트는 증거 기반 검증과 거버넌스 정당성을 분리함.
- 후보 인센티브 메커니즘은 연구, 데이터, 모델링, 증거를 통해 먼저 평가된 채택 여부 결정을 위해 거버넌스에 제안됨.
- 거버넌스 보상, 참여, 근거 인센티브, 보상 분배, 투표권 집중, 거버넌스 보상 설계에 관해 에이다 전반에 걸쳐 상당한 작업이 이미 존재함.
- 거버넌스 인센티브 워킹 그룹은 이 영역 전반에 걸쳐 49개의 관련 노력, 제안, 연구 논문, 도구, 관련 이니셔티브를 식별하는 매핑 문서를 이미 생성했음.
- 여기에는 CPS-0020, CPS-0033, CIP-0149, Beyond MVG, 형식적 보상 체계 연구, 프로세스 우선 DRep 보상 연구, Input Output Research의 에이다 비전 2026 작업을 통해 개발된 작업이 포함됨.
- 본 프로젝트는 이러한 기존 아이디어와 접근 방식을 고려하고, 가정, 장단점, 잠재적인 의도치 않은 영향을 검토하며, 추가 연구, 거버넌스 데이터, 모델링, 통제된 테스트, 커뮤니티 의견과 결합하여 에이다에 가장 적합한 거버넌스 인센티브 모델을 중심으로 연구 기반의 커뮤니티 합의를 구축함.
- 그 결과 실용적인 거버넌스 인센티브 프레임워크, 공개 데이터셋 및 대시보드, 문서화된 모델 및 공식 결과, 연구 출판물, 통제된 인센티브 파일럿의 결과물, 거버넌스 통합 경로가 도출될 것임.
- 이는 에이다 2030 필러 3을 직접 지원하며, 연구 및 데이터 인프라를 통해 필러 1을 지원함.
■ 주석
*DRep: 탈중앙화 대표(Decentralized Representative)
***CPS: 에이다 문제 서술서(Cardano Problem Statement)
- 에이다 거버넌스는 거버넌스 참여자들과 이해관계자들의 지속적이고, 정보에 기반하며, 무결성 높은 참여에 의존함.
- 그러나 현재 이러한 기여가 시간이 지남에 따라 어떤 방식으로 인센티브화되고, 측정되며, 지원되어야 하는지를 결정하기 위한 구조화되고 데이터 기반의 프레임워크가 부재함.
- 이는 여러 위험을 초래하며, 초기 거버넌스 데이터는 이미 우려의 이유를 보여줌.
- 에이다의 온체인 거버넌스 첫해 동안 활성 DRep 수는 모든 12에포크 기간마다 감소했음.
- 동시에 투표권이 점점 더 집중되었음.
- DRep 지니 계수가 0.92에서 0.94로 증가했으며, 11~16개의 DRep가 투표권의 51%를 차지함.
- 거버넌스 현황 연구는 또한 효과적인 거버넌스를 가로막는 5대 주요 구조적 장벽 중 하나로 인센티브 부족을 식별했음.
- 지속 가능성에 대한 우려 는 DRep를 넘어섬.
- 한 헌법 위원회 컨소시엄은 보상 부족으로 인해 사임했음.
- 그러나 인센티브 역시 자체적인 위험을 창출함.
- 잘못 설계된 메커니즘은 표면적인 활동에 보상을 제공하고, 기존 투표권 집중을 강화하며, 게이밍을 조장하거나, 의미 있는 거버넌스 가치를 창출하지 못한 채 재무 자원을 소모할 수 있음.
- 목표와 성공 지척을 정의하는 명확한 인센티브 프레임워크가 없으면, 에이다는 49가지 접근 방식과 연구 결과 중 어떤 것이 타당한지 식별할 수단이 부족하며, 보상 결정을 반응적이고 정치적이며 일관성 없이 내릴 위험이 있음.
- 생태계는 어떤 거버넌스 문제가 실제로 인센티브와 관련이 있는지, 어떤 행동과 기여가 가치를 창출하는지, 어떤 지표가 신뢰할 수 있는지, 어떤 참여자 그룹에 다른 처우가 필요한지, 그리고 탈중앙화, 책임성, 거버넌스 무결성을 저해하지 않으면서 지속적인 참여를 강화할 수 있는 메커니즘이 무엇인지를 결정하기 위한 조정된 방식이 필요함.
■ 주석
*DRep: 탈중앙화 대표(Decentralized Representative)
***Treasury: 생태계 자금을 관리하는 온체인 기금
- 거버넌스 인센티브 프레임워크는 에이다에서 거버넌스 인센티브를 설계, 테스트, 평가하기 위한 구조화되고 증거 기반의 접근 방식을 생성할 것임.
- 이 프레임워크는 거버넌스 인센티브를 위한 방법론과 달성해야 할 목표를 정의하기 때문에 중요함.
- 개별 인센티브 모델은 해당 프레임워크 내에서 개발되고 테스트된 구체적인 보상 메커니즘을 정의함.
- 우리는 거버넌스 인센티브 작업의 기존 지형을 매핑했음.
- 이는 중복 작업을 방지하고 기존에 존재하는 것, 누락된 것, 그리고 다양한 이니셔티브가 협력할 수 있는 영역에 대한 공유된 이해를 형성하는 데 도움이 될 것임.
- 그 후 프로젝트는 참여자별 인센티브 문제를 정의하고 다양한 유형의 기여를 구분하여 지속 가능한 인센티브 프레임워크를 향한 명확한 범위와 상세한 로드맵을 수립할 것임.
- 거버넌스 활동 데이터, 커뮤니티 피드백, 전문가 의견을 활용하여 프로젝트는 인센티브 모델을 개발하고 시뮬레이션할 것임.
- 이러한 모델은 참여를 증가시키는지 여부뿐만 아니라 탈중앙화를 지원하는지, 집중 위험을 줄이는지, 책임성을 개선하는지, 보상 게이밍 및 얕은 준수 행동과 같은 의도치 않은 영향을 방지하는지 여부에 따라 평가될 것임.
- 모델링 접근 방식은 형식적 보상 체계 연구와 프로세스 우선 에이다 전용 분석을 모두 기반으로 할 것임.
- 관련 있는 경우, 프로젝트는 지분증명 거버넌스의 보상 체계 및 위원회 규모 연구에서 개발된 행동 및 비용 가정을 포함하여 기존 거버넌스 보상 모델을 재현하고 평가할 것임.
- 프로젝트는 이러한 가정이 에이다의 라이브 거버넌스 환경에 얼마나 잘 이전되는지 테스트할 것임.
- 정보, 대시보드, 데이터셋을 갖춘 공개 웹사이트는 작업을 투명하고 교육적으로 만들며 커뮤니티가 이해하고 검토하기 쉽게 만들 것임.
- 또한, 전용 통제 인센티브 파일럿 작업 패키지는 명확하게 정의된 통제된 인센티브 실험 하나에 자금을 지원할 것임.
- 최종 결과물은 완전한 거버넌스 인센티브 프레임워크가 될 것이며, 공개 연구 및 커뮤니티 피드백 보고서, 구조화된 거버넌스 활동 데이터, 공개 대시보드, 문서화된 인센티브 모델 및 공식 결과, 통제된 인센티브 파일럿 테스트 결과, 에이다의 향후 거버넌스 인센티브 메커니즘을 위한 명확하게 정의된 구현 경로를 포함할 것임.
- 프로젝트는 프로젝트의 연구, 거버넌스 데이터, 인센티브 모델, 커뮤니티 피드백, 통제된 테스트 결과의 지원을 받아 거버넌스 인센티브 프레임워크 CIP를 제작하고 제출할 것임.
■ 주석
*CIP: 에이다 개선 제안(Cardano Improvement Proposal)
***Dashboard: 데이터 시각화 및 모니터링 인터페이스
English
Significant work already exists across Cardano on governance compensation, participation, rationale incentives, reward distribution, voting-power concentration, and governance reward design. The Governance Incentives Working Group has already created a mapping document identifying 49 relevant efforts, proposals, research papers, tools, and related initiatives across this space [1]. This includes work developed through CPS-0020 [2], as well as CPS-0033 [3], CIP-0149 [4], Beyond MVG [6], formal reward-scheme research [7], process-first DRep compensation research [8], and Input Output Research’s Cardano Vision 2026 work [9]. The project will consider these existing ideas and approaches, examine their assumptions, advantages, disadvantages, and potential unintended effects, and combine them with further research, governance data, modeling, controlled testing, and community input to build research-backed community consensus around the most suitable governance incentive models for Cardano.
The result will be a practical Governance Incentives Framework, public dataset and dashboard, documented model and formula outputs, research publications, findings from a controlled incentive pilot, and a governance integration pathway. This directly supports Cardano 2030 Pillar 3 and, through its research and data infrastructure, Pillar 1.
This creates several risks, and early governance data already shows reasons for concern. During Cardano’s first year of on-chain governance, the number of active DReps declined in every 12-epoch period. At the same time, voting power became increasingly concentrated: the DRep Gini coefficient increased from 0.92 to 0.94, and between 11-16 DReps represent 51% of voting power [6]. The State of Governance research also identified an “incentive deficit” as one of five major structural barriers to effective governance. Sustainability concerns extend beyond DReps: one Constitutional Committee consortium retired due to lack of compensation [6]. Yet incentives also create risks of their own. Poorly designed mechanisms could reward surface-level activity, reinforce existing voting-power concentration, encourage gaming, or spend treasury resources without creating meaningful governance value.
Without a clear incentive framework that defines objectives and measures of success, Cardano lacks a way to identify which of the 49 approaches and findings make sense and risks making compensation decisions reactively, politically, or inconsistently. The ecosystem needs a coordinated way to determine which governance problems are actually incentive-related, which behaviors and contributions create value, which metrics are reliable, which actor groups require different treatment, and which mechanisms can strengthen sustained participation without undermining decentralization, accountability, or governance integrity.
The Governance Incentives Framework will create a structured, evidence-based approach for designing, testing, and evaluating governance incentives in Cardano. The framework is important because it defines the methodology and what should be achieved for governance incentives. Individual incentive models define specific reward mechanisms developed and tested within that framework.
We have mapped the existing landscape of governance incentive work. This will help avoid duplicated work and create a shared understanding of what already exists, what is missing, and where different initiatives can collaborate. The project will then define actor-specific incentive problems and distinguish between different types of contribution to establish a clear scope and a detailed roadmap toward a sustainable incentives framework.
Using governance activity data, community feedback, and expert input, the project will develop and simulate incentive models. These models will be assessed not only by whether they increase participation, but also by whether they support decentralization, reduce concentration risks, improve accountability, and avoid reward gaming, shallow compliance behavior, and other unintended effects. The modeling approach will build on both formal reward-scheme research and process-first Cardano-specific analysis [7, 8].
Where relevant, the project will reproduce and evaluate existing governance reward models, including the behavioral and cost assumptions developed in Reward Schemes and Committee Sizes in Proof of Stake Governance [7]. The project will test how well these assumptions transfer to Cardano’s live governance environment
A public website with information, dashboard and dataset will make the work transparent, educational and easier for the community to understand and review. In addition, a dedicated controlled incentive pilot work package will fund one clearly defined, controlled incentive experiment.
The final result will be a complete Governance Incentives Framework, including public research and community feedback reports, structured governance activity data, a public dashboard, documented incentive models and formula outputs, findings from controlled incentive pilot testing, and a clearly defined implementation pathway for future governance incentive mechanisms in Cardano. The project will produce and submit a Governance Incentives Framework CIP, supported by the project’s research, governance data, incentive models, community feedback, and controlled testing findings.
# Strategic Alignment
The framework aligns primarily with Cardano 2030 Pillar 3 — Governance [5], and secondarily with Pillar 5 — Ecosystem Sustainability & Resilience and Pillar 1 — Infrastructure & Research Excellence.
## Primary Alignment: Pillar 3 — Governance
### Alignment with G.1 — Incentivized & Accessible Governance
Governance participation can depend on contributors having sufficient time, financial security, or institutional support. The project will evaluate how incentives can sustain broader participation while preserving accountability, decentralization, and governance integrity.
### Alignment with G.2 — Turnout-Aware Voting with Delegator Safeguard
Higher activity or turnout will not be treated as sufficient evidence of success. Mechanisms will also be evaluated for participation quality, reward distribution, concentration, gaming risk, and effects on delegators to avoid rewarding superficial activity or reinforcing dominant actors.
## Secondary Alignment: Pillar 5 — Ecosystem Sustainability & Resilience
By examining incentives for sustained participation across different actor types, the framework aims to reduce burnout, attrition, and dependence on highly resourced contributors, strengthening long-term governance resilience.
## Secondary Alignment: Pillar 1 — Infrastructure & Research Excellence
Governance research, structured datasets, monitoring infrastructure, incentive models, and a public dashboard will create reusable evidence and infrastructure for future governance design and monitoring.
# Milestones and Deliverables
The project will be delivered over 12 months through seven staged milestones. The work moves from discovery and framework design into data collection, modeling, community validation, dashboarding, controlled testing, and culminates in a submitted Governance Incentives Framework CIP and a practical governance integration pathway. Each milestone produces reviewable outputs that will be documented publicly.
## Milestone 1: Initial Setup and Discovery
Estimated duration: Month 1–2
Establish the project foundation, review existing work, map related governance incentive initiatives, and define the initial problem space.
Key deliverables
- Project kickoff and internal coordination structure.
- Initial project roadmap and delivery plan.
- Initial governance incentives initiative map.
- Review summary of relevant prior work.
- Initial incentive-design problem framing.
- Initial actor and contribution landscape.
- Initial community engagement plan.
- Public communication channels and feedback process.
- Public-facing website including basic information and question submission form.
Acceptance criteria
- Governance Incentives Mapping Document finalized and filtered to the most relevant initiatives, research, and approaches.
- Discovery outputs sufficient to define the initial incentive-design scope and roadmap for Milestone 2.
- Public feedback channels operational.
## Milestone 2: Framework and Parameter Definition
Estimated duration: Month 3–4
Develop the preliminary Governance Incentives Framework and define the initial categories of governance behaviors, parameters, risks, and incentive design constraints.
Key deliverables
- Preliminary Governance Incentives Framework draft with supporting rationale.
- Initial actor-specific incentive analysis.
- State-of-the-Art Evidence Review synthesizing the relevant scientific and Cardano-specific evidence base for governance incentive design.
- Initial parameter landscape for governance contributions and behaviors.
- Initial risk and anti-gaming framework.
- Initial governance integration considerations.
- First structured community feedback sessions or open discussions.
- Updated initiative map based on community input and related work.
- Early requirements for data collection and monitoring.
- Produce a report assessing possible technical pathways for delivering rewards, including protocol-level and smart-contract-based approaches.
- Controlled incentive pilot testing plan, including a predefined experimental duration.
- Measurement and reporting plan.
Acceptance criteria
- Preliminary framework completed, clearly distinguishing governance actor groups and incentive contexts.
- Initial parameter categories and key incentive-design risks documented without locking in final formulas.
- Community feedback documented and routed into relevant work packages.
- State-of-the-Art Evidence Review completed and 10+ research questions submitted to researchers.
- Pilot testing plan completed, with the intended middle-out basis and material pre-launch changes documented publicly.
## Milestone 3: Community Engagement and Data Collection Start
Estimated duration: Month 5–6
Begin governance activity monitoring and deepen community validation of the framework assumptions. The middle-out pilot is an early controlled test of one existing mechanism and does not prejudge the project’s final incentive-model selection; its findings will inform the later comparison, refinement, and validation of multiple candidate mechanisms.
Key deliverables
- Initial governance data collection infrastructure.
- First working version of monitoring scripts or data pipelines.
- Initial structured governance activity dataset.
- Public update on framework progress and open questions.
- Community feedback sessions focused on incentive risks, actor-specific needs, possible parameters, anti-concentration concerns, and relationship to existing initiatives.
- Updated framework assumptions based on early data and feedback.
- Documentation of data sources, limitations, and reliability considerations.
- Apply the finalized pilot specification.
- Pilot/Experiment started.
Acceptance criteria
- Governance data can be collected and structured, with sources and known limitations documented.
- Stakeholder feedback summarized and open modeling questions identified for the next milestone.
- Pilot script successfully tested and controlled middle-out pilot launched.
## Milestone 4: Incentive Modeling and Simulation
Estimated duration: Month 7–8
Develop and test initial incentive models using collected data, community-validated assumptions, and relevant formal and process-first reward research [7, 8].
Key deliverables
- Initial incentive model designs.
- Simulation scenarios for different incentive mechanisms.
- Initial payment or reward calculation logic.
- Analysis of potential effects on participation, rationale quality, sustained engagement, reward distribution, voting-power concentration, gaming risks, and budget sustainability.
- Initial technical feasibility review.
- Community-facing explanation of early modeling assumptions.
- Updated risk and trade-off documentation.
Acceptance criteria
- At least one model or mechanism family documented and simulated, with assumptions clearly explained.
- Simulations cover intended effects and relevant failure modes, including concentration, gaming, and budget risks.
- Results shared in a form governance stakeholders can review.
## Milestone 5: Dashboard, Public Review, and Model Refinement
Estimated duration: Month 9–10
Make the project’s data, assumptions, and model outputs easier to inspect, and refine the framework based on testing and feedback.
Key deliverables
- Initial dashboard or dashboard prototype.
- Visualizations of relevant governance activity data.
- Updated incentive model based on testing and feedback.
- Updated framework architecture.
- Public explanation of what the dashboard shows and does not show.
- Feedback cycle on dashboard usability, model interpretation, and incentive risks.
- Updated documentation of assumptions, limitations, and next steps.
Acceptance criteria
- Public-facing dashboard or prototype available with documented data, visualizations, and limitations.
- Stakeholder feedback on dashboard usability and model interpretation collected.
- Model and framework refined based on data, testing, and feedback.
## Milestone 6: Final Validation
Estimated duration: Month 11
Finalize and validate the framework.
Key deliverables
- Final candidate incentive mechanism set.
- Final community feedback sessions.
- Final validation report covering the framework, model performance, pilot evidence, risks, and trade-offs.
Acceptance criteria
- Final validation report completed, covering framework performance, model evidence, pilot findings, risks, and trade-offs.
- Final community feedback, remaining risks, limitations, and unresolved questions documented.
## Milestone 7: Final Report and Governance Integration Pathway
Estimated duration: Month 12
Conclude the project with final documentation, handover materials, and a practical pathway for future governance integration.
Key deliverables
- Final Governance Incentives Framework report.
- Final governance activity dataset.
- Final dashboard and documentation.
- Final candidate incentive models and formula documentation.
- Final controlled incentive pilot findings report.
- At least one publication-ready research paper completed and submitted to an appropriate peer-reviewed venue.
- Community feedback report.
- Completed and submitted Governance Incentives Framework CIP.
- Governance integration pathway identifying any complementary CPS, treasury-withdrawal, protocol, or governance-action routes required for implementation.
- Handover documentation for future maintainers, data auditors, reviewers, or governance bodies.
- Final financial and milestone report.
- Governance action submitted to DReps seeking approval of the completed Governance Incentives Framework and its recommended incentive-model pathway.
Acceptance criteria
- Final framework, report, dataset, dashboard, model documentation, and pilot findings publicly available.
- Final framework traces recommendations to research, data, modeling, community feedback, and pilot evidence.
- Governance Incentives Framework CIP completed, published, and submitted through the established CIP process.
- Governance integration pathway documented and governance action submitted to DReps for consideration.
- Final financial and delivery reporting completed according to administration and audit requirements.
# Metrics and KPIs
## 1. Framework Development
Governance Incentives Mapping: Completed by end of Month 2
First Framework draft: by end of Month 4
## 2. Active Community Engagement (12 month period)
Unique Governance actors engaged: 50+
Public Workshops held: 10+
Feedback Documentation: Material stakeholder feedback documented and incorporated or addressed with rationale.
Public Progress Updates: 12 monthly public project updates published.
## 3. Modeling of Incentives
Parameter validation: 100% of parameters are available
Preliminary models archived & available: 100% (while website is maintained by us)
Simulation Scenarios: 50+ scenarios
Failure-Mode Testing Against: anti-gaming, anti-concentration, and budget constraints.
Developer Feedback: positive feasibility assessment
## 4. Data Engineering & Governance Monitoring
Monitoring service availability: ≥99%
Data processing and database update latency: <1 hour
Data Documentation: Published datasets include definitions, sources, methodology, and known limitations.
## 5. Website and Dashboard
Website & Dashboard Launch: On schedule (Milestones)
Amount of meaningful Dashboards created: 5+
Page Load Speed: <3 seconds
## 6. Administration
Timeline Adherence: 95%+ of deliverables finished on time
Milestones Reported: 100%
Risk Management: 100% of high and critical risks have an owner & mitigation plan.
Public Reporting: 12 monthly progress reports
## 7. Research (IOR dependency)
Research Question: 10+ research questions submitted
Research Output: 1+ publication-ready research paper completed and submitted for peer review
Experiment: pilot-related research questions addressed and findings documented
State-of-the-Art Evidence Review: completed and published by end of Month 4
## 8. Pilot
Pilot Findings Report: Pilot methodology, results, deviations, limitations, and implications published
# Team / Track Record
In late 2024, Sebastian and Seomon met at the Cardano Tech Hackathon shortly before the Constitution Summit. There, they began examining Cardano governance incentives and developed an initial model for rewarding governance actors. A few months later, they stepped back to define the underlying problem more rigorously, resulting in CPS-0020 - Governance Stakeholder Incentivization [2]. They concluded that designing an effective incentive model for governance actors required a dedicated research and development effort rather than a side project. This proposal seeks the resources needed to undertake that work for the wider Cardano community.
### Seomon:
- Cardano Builder (https://zkpoker.io)
- Civics Committee member - elected on a governance incentives platform; Governance Incentives Working Group Lead
- Cardano Ambassador
- Constitutional Alternate Delegate
- Successfully closed out 10+ Catalyst proposals
### Sebastian Pereira:
- Led a project to design better citizen ID collection in Bolivia for the CAN (Comunidad Andina)
- Worked for the Bolivia Ministry of Planning as part of the Government Subsidy Department
- EMURGO Blockchain Instructor
- Copywriter on over 20 projects
- Co-creator of Cardano Smart developer bot
- Blockchain consultant
- Successfully closed out:
- Cardano Smart: AI assistant for documentation and on-chain/off-chain development - 170,000 ADA
- Smart Pack: parcels damage verification system on Cardano - 100,000 ADA
- Littlefish - Coordinating Action - 43,500 ADA
### Cerkoryn - Consultant and Research Contributor:
As part of the Cardano Incentives Working Group, Cerkoryn has proposed multiple CIPs addressing stake-pool incentives. His paper, Beyond Binary Outcomes: A Process-First Reward Design for dRep Compensation [8], analyzes how alternative reward mechanisms may affect participation, decentralization, and reward concentration, and informs his contribution to this proposal.
# Budget Summary
The proposal presents workstream-level allocations rather than every operational line item.
Budget area ADA
Conceptualization ₳445,000.00
Active Community Engagement ₳366,400.00
Modeling of Incentives ₳884,000.00
Data Engineering & Governance Monitoring ₳295,000.00
Website and Dashboard ₳253,333.33
Administration and Coordination ₳472,000.00
Science and Research ₳476,666.67
Pilot ₳333,333.33
Additional Costs (tooling, legal, and travel) ₳118,666.67
Contingency Reserve ₳437,328.00
Independent Audit and Oversight ₳126,239.00
Total ₳4,207,967.00
The detailed operational budget is maintained separately for audit, administration, and delivery management. This proposal presents only workstream-level allocations. The Website and Dashboard allocation covers 12 months of project delivery and six months of post-project maintenance.
# Expected Value and Impact
The Governance Incentives Framework will create value by reducing uncertainty before Cardano adopts permanent governance incentive mechanisms. Rather than assuming that increased activity or compensation automatically improves governance, the project will provide the research, data, models, public review processes, and controlled testing needed to evaluate which mechanisms create value and which introduce new risks.
### Reducing long-term incentive risk
This one-year R&D investment is intended to inform governance incentive mechanisms that could distribute substantial treasury funds for many years. Poorly designed incentives can create recurring costs without gaining substantial value by rewarding low-value activity, reinforcing concentration, encouraging gaming, excluding smaller actors, or requiring expensive redesign after implementation.
### Better-informed governance decisions
The current 2026–27 Net Change Limit permits up to ₳350 million in treasury withdrawals over its applicable period. The ₳4.21 million project budget represents approximately 1.20% of that limit, illustrating the scale of this one-time R&D investment relative to the treasury resources that governance mechanisms can influence over time.
### Reduced duplication and fragmentation
The project has already identified 49 related efforts, proposals, papers, tools, and initiatives. This will identify overlaps, gaps, and opportunities for coordination, therefore reducing the risk that the community funds duplicative work or develops incompatible approaches in parallel.
### Reusable public infrastructure
Without shared infrastructure, every future governance-incentive proposal may need to pay again for data collection, metric definition, analysis, and visualization. The project will create reusable datasets, pipelines, metrics, models, and dashboard components that reduce the setup cost of later governance research and monitoring.
### Tested incentive mechanisms
Candidate incentive mechanisms will be modeled and simulated against participation, reward distribution, voting-power concentration, gaming risks, budget sustainability, and other relevant criteria, informed by prior formal and Cardano-specific reward-design research [7, 8]. A controlled incentive pilot will provide practical evidence about at least one selected mechanism, subject to the project’s defined safeguards.
### Implementation readiness and accountability
The project will translate its findings into a submitted Governance Incentives Framework CIP and a practical pathway covering governance, treasury, protocol, and implementation needs. Public datasets, model assumptions, milestone reporting, financial oversight, and refund conditions will allow the community to scrutinize both the recommendations and the use of funds.
### Contributor sustainability
A better understanding of governance workloads, contribution types, and incentive requirements can help Cardano address burnout, attrition, inconsistent participation, and dependence on contributors with substantial personal or institutional resources.
# Risks and Challenges
## Risk Overview
The project faces potential risks across technical, organizational, community, and governance dimensions. This section lists some of the more likely risks, mitigation strategies and contingency plans.
### 1 Community Engagement
Risk: Low participation or skepticism limits project value. Probability: High | Impact: High
Mitigation: Monthly workshops, transparent documentation, continuous community engagement on different platforms (X, GitHub, YouTube, Cardano Forum, Intersect)
Contingency: Increase engagement activities, address concerns transparently, adjust communication strategy.
### 2 Governance Framework Changes
Risk: Framework changes invalidate recommendations. Probability: Medium | Impact: Medium
Mitigation: Monitor governance evolution, design flexible models, maintain leadership communication, plan updates.
Contingency: Develop alternative scenarios, update models if changes occur, extend timeline.
### 3 Technical Integration
Risk: Ledger integration faces technical obstacles. Probability: Low-Medium | Impact: Medium
Mitigation: Early developer engagement, technical planning, and architectural support.
Contingency: Develop alternative approaches, extend timeline, collaborate on protocol modifications.
### 4 Model Validation
Risk: Models may not accurately predict real-world participation patterns. Probability: Medium | Impact: High
Mitigation: Rigorous backtesting, sensitivity analysis, edge-case testing, expert review, Pilot program.
Contingency: Refine parameters, expand model complexity, extend validation timeline.
# Administration / Audit / Oversight Support
The budget includes ₳126,239.00 for Administration / Audit / Oversight Support. This allocation represents 3% of the complete project budget, including the audit allocation itself.
This allocation supports proportional administration and required independent auditing connected to the treasury withdrawal process. The goal is to provide accountability without creating unnecessary administrative overhead for a grant-style governance R&D project.
# Pilot / Controlled Experiment
The middle-out mechanism [8] will serve as an early controlled experiment, not as the project’s final incentive model. It will test how DReps respond to real financial incentives and whether predicted effects on participation, reward distribution, decentralization, and concentration persist when participants can adapt their behavior.
The pilot will examine sustained voting activity, which DRep types respond, strategic adaptation and gaming, and differences between observed reward distributions and model predictions. A script will apply the finalized pilot specification and distribute eligible ADA rewards with minimal technical overhead; findings will inform later comparison and refinement of candidate mechanisms.
The middle-out mechanism is the basis of the pilot. Before launch, parameters, safeguards, eligibility rules, and implementation details may be refined through research, simulation, technical testing, expert review, and community feedback; material changes will be documented publicly. Once launched, rules remain fixed except for predefined safety or termination conditions.
# Contingency use
The proposal includes a 12% contingency reserve of ₳437,328.00 for justified unforeseen costs during the 12-month project.
The contingency reserve is not an unrestricted spending line. Any use of contingency funds will be documented through milestones or financial reporting to the auditors.
# Refund Conditions
Unused restricted reserves, such as unused contingency or unused pilot funds, will be returned to the Cardano Treasury if they are not needed for the approved project scope. A final reconciliation will be published as part of the oversight reporting cycle. In the event of partial delivery or scope reduction, unspent funds associated with cancelled or reduced deliverables will be returned proportionally.
Input Output Research (IOR) includes research on governance incentives in its funded Cardano Vision 2026 proposal [9]. To avoid duplicating work already funded by the community, any overlapping research subjects will be coordinated with IOR. Where overlap makes a planned work package unnecessary, in whole or in part, the corresponding unused allocation will be returned to the Cardano Treasury.
부가 정보
| 트랜잭션 해시 | f57f8fcb4e83ad1b6f58bffd4a302aacbb5a90874c83c5f84a7f8b4bb43ce9bc |
|---|---|
| 블록 타임 | 1786733258 |
| Proposal ID | gov_action174lclj6wswk3km6chl755vp24ja44yy8fjput7z20795hdpuax7qq67pvcp |
| Proposal Index | 0 |
Governance Incentives Framework 2026에 대한 제안
현재 어디까지 왔나
📊 제안서 투표현황
DRep 투표현황
SPO 투표현황
헌법위원회 투표현황
📝 상세 설명
🇰🇷 한글 버전
- 에이다는 어떤 메커니즘이 효과가 있는지, 비용이 얼마나 드는지, 누가 결과에 책임을 져야 하는지에 대한 공통의 근거 없이 거버넌스 인센티브에 대한 중대한 결정을 앞두고 있음.
- 본 프로젝트는 증거 기반 검증과 거버넌스 정당성을 분리함.
- 후보 인센티브 메커니즘은 연구, 데이터, 모델링, 증거를 통해 먼저 평가된 채택 여부 결정을 위해 거버넌스에 제안됨.
- 거버넌스 보상, 참여, 근거 인센티브, 보상 분배, 투표권 집중, 거버넌스 보상 설계에 관해 에이다 전반에 걸쳐 상당한 작업이 이미 존재함.
- 거버넌스 인센티브 워킹 그룹은 이 영역 전반에 걸쳐 49개의 관련 노력, 제안, 연구 논문, 도구, 관련 이니셔티브를 식별하는 매핑 문서를 이미 생성했음.
- 여기에는 CPS-0020, CPS-0033, CIP-0149, Beyond MVG, 형식적 보상 체계 연구, 프로세스 우선 DRep 보상 연구, Input Output Research의 에이다 비전 2026 작업을 통해 개발된 작업이 포함됨.
- 본 프로젝트는 이러한 기존 아이디어와 접근 방식을 고려하고, 가정, 장단점, 잠재적인 의도치 않은 영향을 검토하며, 추가 연구, 거버넌스 데이터, 모델링, 통제된 테스트, 커뮤니티 의견과 결합하여 에이다에 가장 적합한 거버넌스 인센티브 모델을 중심으로 연구 기반의 커뮤니티 합의를 구축함.
- 그 결과 실용적인 거버넌스 인센티브 프레임워크, 공개 데이터셋 및 대시보드, 문서화된 모델 및 공식 결과, 연구 출판물, 통제된 인센티브 파일럿의 결과물, 거버넌스 통합 경로가 도출될 것임.
- 이는 에이다 2030 필러 3을 직접 지원하며, 연구 및 데이터 인프라를 통해 필러 1을 지원함.
■ 주석
*DRep: 탈중앙화 대표(Decentralized Representative)
***CPS: 에이다 문제 서술서(Cardano Problem Statement)
- 에이다 거버넌스는 거버넌스 참여자들과 이해관계자들의 지속적이고, 정보에 기반하며, 무결성 높은 참여에 의존함.
- 그러나 현재 이러한 기여가 시간이 지남에 따라 어떤 방식으로 인센티브화되고, 측정되며, 지원되어야 하는지를 결정하기 위한 구조화되고 데이터 기반의 프레임워크가 부재함.
- 이는 여러 위험을 초래하며, 초기 거버넌스 데이터는 이미 우려의 이유를 보여줌.
- 에이다의 온체인 거버넌스 첫해 동안 활성 DRep 수는 모든 12에포크 기간마다 감소했음.
- 동시에 투표권이 점점 더 집중되었음.
- DRep 지니 계수가 0.92에서 0.94로 증가했으며, 11~16개의 DRep가 투표권의 51%를 차지함.
- 거버넌스 현황 연구는 또한 효과적인 거버넌스를 가로막는 5대 주요 구조적 장벽 중 하나로 인센티브 부족을 식별했음.
- 지속 가능성에 대한 우려 는 DRep를 넘어섬.
- 한 헌법 위원회 컨소시엄은 보상 부족으로 인해 사임했음.
- 그러나 인센티브 역시 자체적인 위험을 창출함.
- 잘못 설계된 메커니즘은 표면적인 활동에 보상을 제공하고, 기존 투표권 집중을 강화하며, 게이밍을 조장하거나, 의미 있는 거버넌스 가치를 창출하지 못한 채 재무 자원을 소모할 수 있음.
- 목표와 성공 지척을 정의하는 명확한 인센티브 프레임워크가 없으면, 에이다는 49가지 접근 방식과 연구 결과 중 어떤 것이 타당한지 식별할 수단이 부족하며, 보상 결정을 반응적이고 정치적이며 일관성 없이 내릴 위험이 있음.
- 생태계는 어떤 거버넌스 문제가 실제로 인센티브와 관련이 있는지, 어떤 행동과 기여가 가치를 창출하는지, 어떤 지표가 신뢰할 수 있는지, 어떤 참여자 그룹에 다른 처우가 필요한지, 그리고 탈중앙화, 책임성, 거버넌스 무결성을 저해하지 않으면서 지속적인 참여를 강화할 수 있는 메커니즘이 무엇인지를 결정하기 위한 조정된 방식이 필요함.
■ 주석
*DRep: 탈중앙화 대표(Decentralized Representative)
***Treasury: 생태계 자금을 관리하는 온체인 기금
- 거버넌스 인센티브 프레임워크는 에이다에서 거버넌스 인센티브를 설계, 테스트, 평가하기 위한 구조화되고 증거 기반의 접근 방식을 생성할 것임.
- 이 프레임워크는 거버넌스 인센티브를 위한 방법론과 달성해야 할 목표를 정의하기 때문에 중요함.
- 개별 인센티브 모델은 해당 프레임워크 내에서 개발되고 테스트된 구체적인 보상 메커니즘을 정의함.
- 우리는 거버넌스 인센티브 작업의 기존 지형을 매핑했음.
- 이는 중복 작업을 방지하고 기존에 존재하는 것, 누락된 것, 그리고 다양한 이니셔티브가 협력할 수 있는 영역에 대한 공유된 이해를 형성하는 데 도움이 될 것임.
- 그 후 프로젝트는 참여자별 인센티브 문제를 정의하고 다양한 유형의 기여를 구분하여 지속 가능한 인센티브 프레임워크를 향한 명확한 범위와 상세한 로드맵을 수립할 것임.
- 거버넌스 활동 데이터, 커뮤니티 피드백, 전문가 의견을 활용하여 프로젝트는 인센티브 모델을 개발하고 시뮬레이션할 것임.
- 이러한 모델은 참여를 증가시키는지 여부뿐만 아니라 탈중앙화를 지원하는지, 집중 위험을 줄이는지, 책임성을 개선하는지, 보상 게이밍 및 얕은 준수 행동과 같은 의도치 않은 영향을 방지하는지 여부에 따라 평가될 것임.
- 모델링 접근 방식은 형식적 보상 체계 연구와 프로세스 우선 에이다 전용 분석을 모두 기반으로 할 것임.
- 관련 있는 경우, 프로젝트는 지분증명 거버넌스의 보상 체계 및 위원회 규모 연구에서 개발된 행동 및 비용 가정을 포함하여 기존 거버넌스 보상 모델을 재현하고 평가할 것임.
- 프로젝트는 이러한 가정이 에이다의 라이브 거버넌스 환경에 얼마나 잘 이전되는지 테스트할 것임.
- 정보, 대시보드, 데이터셋을 갖춘 공개 웹사이트는 작업을 투명하고 교육적으로 만들며 커뮤니티가 이해하고 검토하기 쉽게 만들 것임.
- 또한, 전용 통제 인센티브 파일럿 작업 패키지는 명확하게 정의된 통제된 인센티브 실험 하나에 자금을 지원할 것임.
- 최종 결과물은 완전한 거버넌스 인센티브 프레임워크가 될 것이며, 공개 연구 및 커뮤니티 피드백 보고서, 구조화된 거버넌스 활동 데이터, 공개 대시보드, 문서화된 인센티브 모델 및 공식 결과, 통제된 인센티브 파일럿 테스트 결과, 에이다의 향후 거버넌스 인센티브 메커니즘을 위한 명확하게 정의된 구현 경로를 포함할 것임.
- 프로젝트는 프로젝트의 연구, 거버넌스 데이터, 인센티브 모델, 커뮤니티 피드백, 통제된 테스트 결과의 지원을 받아 거버넌스 인센티브 프레임워크 CIP를 제작하고 제출할 것임.
■ 주석
*CIP: 에이다 개선 제안(Cardano Improvement Proposal)
***Dashboard: 데이터 시각화 및 모니터링 인터페이스
🇺🇸 English
Significant work already exists across Cardano on governance compensation, participation, rationale incentives, reward distribution, voting-power concentration, and governance reward design. The Governance Incentives Working Group has already created a mapping document identifying 49 relevant efforts, proposals, research papers, tools, and related initiatives across this space [1]. This includes work developed through CPS-0020 [2], as well as CPS-0033 [3], CIP-0149 [4], Beyond MVG [6], formal reward-scheme research [7], process-first DRep compensation research [8], and Input Output Research’s Cardano Vision 2026 work [9]. The project will consider these existing ideas and approaches, examine their assumptions, advantages, disadvantages, and potential unintended effects, and combine them with further research, governance data, modeling, controlled testing, and community input to build research-backed community consensus around the most suitable governance incentive models for Cardano.
The result will be a practical Governance Incentives Framework, public dataset and dashboard, documented model and formula outputs, research publications, findings from a controlled incentive pilot, and a governance integration pathway. This directly supports Cardano 2030 Pillar 3 and, through its research and data infrastructure, Pillar 1.
This creates several risks, and early governance data already shows reasons for concern. During Cardano’s first year of on-chain governance, the number of active DReps declined in every 12-epoch period. At the same time, voting power became increasingly concentrated: the DRep Gini coefficient increased from 0.92 to 0.94, and between 11-16 DReps represent 51% of voting power [6]. The State of Governance research also identified an “incentive deficit” as one of five major structural barriers to effective governance. Sustainability concerns extend beyond DReps: one Constitutional Committee consortium retired due to lack of compensation [6]. Yet incentives also create risks of their own. Poorly designed mechanisms could reward surface-level activity, reinforce existing voting-power concentration, encourage gaming, or spend treasury resources without creating meaningful governance value.
Without a clear incentive framework that defines objectives and measures of success, Cardano lacks a way to identify which of the 49 approaches and findings make sense and risks making compensation decisions reactively, politically, or inconsistently. The ecosystem needs a coordinated way to determine which governance problems are actually incentive-related, which behaviors and contributions create value, which metrics are reliable, which actor groups require different treatment, and which mechanisms can strengthen sustained participation without undermining decentralization, accountability, or governance integrity.
The Governance Incentives Framework will create a structured, evidence-based approach for designing, testing, and evaluating governance incentives in Cardano. The framework is important because it defines the methodology and what should be achieved for governance incentives. Individual incentive models define specific reward mechanisms developed and tested within that framework.
We have mapped the existing landscape of governance incentive work. This will help avoid duplicated work and create a shared understanding of what already exists, what is missing, and where different initiatives can collaborate. The project will then define actor-specific incentive problems and distinguish between different types of contribution to establish a clear scope and a detailed roadmap toward a sustainable incentives framework.
Using governance activity data, community feedback, and expert input, the project will develop and simulate incentive models. These models will be assessed not only by whether they increase participation, but also by whether they support decentralization, reduce concentration risks, improve accountability, and avoid reward gaming, shallow compliance behavior, and other unintended effects. The modeling approach will build on both formal reward-scheme research and process-first Cardano-specific analysis [7, 8].
Where relevant, the project will reproduce and evaluate existing governance reward models, including the behavioral and cost assumptions developed in Reward Schemes and Committee Sizes in Proof of Stake Governance [7]. The project will test how well these assumptions transfer to Cardano’s live governance environment
A public website with information, dashboard and dataset will make the work transparent, educational and easier for the community to understand and review. In addition, a dedicated controlled incentive pilot work package will fund one clearly defined, controlled incentive experiment.
The final result will be a complete Governance Incentives Framework, including public research and community feedback reports, structured governance activity data, a public dashboard, documented incentive models and formula outputs, findings from controlled incentive pilot testing, and a clearly defined implementation pathway for future governance incentive mechanisms in Cardano. The project will produce and submit a Governance Incentives Framework CIP, supported by the project’s research, governance data, incentive models, community feedback, and controlled testing findings.
# Strategic Alignment
The framework aligns primarily with Cardano 2030 Pillar 3 — Governance [5], and secondarily with Pillar 5 — Ecosystem Sustainability & Resilience and Pillar 1 — Infrastructure & Research Excellence.
## Primary Alignment: Pillar 3 — Governance
### Alignment with G.1 — Incentivized & Accessible Governance
Governance participation can depend on contributors having sufficient time, financial security, or institutional support. The project will evaluate how incentives can sustain broader participation while preserving accountability, decentralization, and governance integrity.
### Alignment with G.2 — Turnout-Aware Voting with Delegator Safeguard
Higher activity or turnout will not be treated as sufficient evidence of success. Mechanisms will also be evaluated for participation quality, reward distribution, concentration, gaming risk, and effects on delegators to avoid rewarding superficial activity or reinforcing dominant actors.
## Secondary Alignment: Pillar 5 — Ecosystem Sustainability & Resilience
By examining incentives for sustained participation across different actor types, the framework aims to reduce burnout, attrition, and dependence on highly resourced contributors, strengthening long-term governance resilience.
## Secondary Alignment: Pillar 1 — Infrastructure & Research Excellence
Governance research, structured datasets, monitoring infrastructure, incentive models, and a public dashboard will create reusable evidence and infrastructure for future governance design and monitoring.
# Milestones and Deliverables
The project will be delivered over 12 months through seven staged milestones. The work moves from discovery and framework design into data collection, modeling, community validation, dashboarding, controlled testing, and culminates in a submitted Governance Incentives Framework CIP and a practical governance integration pathway. Each milestone produces reviewable outputs that will be documented publicly.
## Milestone 1: Initial Setup and Discovery
Estimated duration: Month 1–2
Establish the project foundation, review existing work, map related governance incentive initiatives, and define the initial problem space.
Key deliverables
- Project kickoff and internal coordination structure.
- Initial project roadmap and delivery plan.
- Initial governance incentives initiative map.
- Review summary of relevant prior work.
- Initial incentive-design problem framing.
- Initial actor and contribution landscape.
- Initial community engagement plan.
- Public communication channels and feedback process.
- Public-facing website including basic information and question submission form.
Acceptance criteria
- Governance Incentives Mapping Document finalized and filtered to the most relevant initiatives, research, and approaches.
- Discovery outputs sufficient to define the initial incentive-design scope and roadmap for Milestone 2.
- Public feedback channels operational.
## Milestone 2: Framework and Parameter Definition
Estimated duration: Month 3–4
Develop the preliminary Governance Incentives Framework and define the initial categories of governance behaviors, parameters, risks, and incentive design constraints.
Key deliverables
- Preliminary Governance Incentives Framework draft with supporting rationale.
- Initial actor-specific incentive analysis.
- State-of-the-Art Evidence Review synthesizing the relevant scientific and Cardano-specific evidence base for governance incentive design.
- Initial parameter landscape for governance contributions and behaviors.
- Initial risk and anti-gaming framework.
- Initial governance integration considerations.
- First structured community feedback sessions or open discussions.
- Updated initiative map based on community input and related work.
- Early requirements for data collection and monitoring.
- Produce a report assessing possible technical pathways for delivering rewards, including protocol-level and smart-contract-based approaches.
- Controlled incentive pilot testing plan, including a predefined experimental duration.
- Measurement and reporting plan.
Acceptance criteria
- Preliminary framework completed, clearly distinguishing governance actor groups and incentive contexts.
- Initial parameter categories and key incentive-design risks documented without locking in final formulas.
- Community feedback documented and routed into relevant work packages.
- State-of-the-Art Evidence Review completed and 10+ research questions submitted to researchers.
- Pilot testing plan completed, with the intended middle-out basis and material pre-launch changes documented publicly.
## Milestone 3: Community Engagement and Data Collection Start
Estimated duration: Month 5–6
Begin governance activity monitoring and deepen community validation of the framework assumptions. The middle-out pilot is an early controlled test of one existing mechanism and does not prejudge the project’s final incentive-model selection; its findings will inform the later comparison, refinement, and validation of multiple candidate mechanisms.
Key deliverables
- Initial governance data collection infrastructure.
- First working version of monitoring scripts or data pipelines.
- Initial structured governance activity dataset.
- Public update on framework progress and open questions.
- Community feedback sessions focused on incentive risks, actor-specific needs, possible parameters, anti-concentration concerns, and relationship to existing initiatives.
- Updated framework assumptions based on early data and feedback.
- Documentation of data sources, limitations, and reliability considerations.
- Apply the finalized pilot specification.
- Pilot/Experiment started.
Acceptance criteria
- Governance data can be collected and structured, with sources and known limitations documented.
- Stakeholder feedback summarized and open modeling questions identified for the next milestone.
- Pilot script successfully tested and controlled middle-out pilot launched.
## Milestone 4: Incentive Modeling and Simulation
Estimated duration: Month 7–8
Develop and test initial incentive models using collected data, community-validated assumptions, and relevant formal and process-first reward research [7, 8].
Key deliverables
- Initial incentive model designs.
- Simulation scenarios for different incentive mechanisms.
- Initial payment or reward calculation logic.
- Analysis of potential effects on participation, rationale quality, sustained engagement, reward distribution, voting-power concentration, gaming risks, and budget sustainability.
- Initial technical feasibility review.
- Community-facing explanation of early modeling assumptions.
- Updated risk and trade-off documentation.
Acceptance criteria
- At least one model or mechanism family documented and simulated, with assumptions clearly explained.
- Simulations cover intended effects and relevant failure modes, including concentration, gaming, and budget risks.
- Results shared in a form governance stakeholders can review.
## Milestone 5: Dashboard, Public Review, and Model Refinement
Estimated duration: Month 9–10
Make the project’s data, assumptions, and model outputs easier to inspect, and refine the framework based on testing and feedback.
Key deliverables
- Initial dashboard or dashboard prototype.
- Visualizations of relevant governance activity data.
- Updated incentive model based on testing and feedback.
- Updated framework architecture.
- Public explanation of what the dashboard shows and does not show.
- Feedback cycle on dashboard usability, model interpretation, and incentive risks.
- Updated documentation of assumptions, limitations, and next steps.
Acceptance criteria
- Public-facing dashboard or prototype available with documented data, visualizations, and limitations.
- Stakeholder feedback on dashboard usability and model interpretation collected.
- Model and framework refined based on data, testing, and feedback.
## Milestone 6: Final Validation
Estimated duration: Month 11
Finalize and validate the framework.
Key deliverables
- Final candidate incentive mechanism set.
- Final community feedback sessions.
- Final validation report covering the framework, model performance, pilot evidence, risks, and trade-offs.
Acceptance criteria
- Final validation report completed, covering framework performance, model evidence, pilot findings, risks, and trade-offs.
- Final community feedback, remaining risks, limitations, and unresolved questions documented.
## Milestone 7: Final Report and Governance Integration Pathway
Estimated duration: Month 12
Conclude the project with final documentation, handover materials, and a practical pathway for future governance integration.
Key deliverables
- Final Governance Incentives Framework report.
- Final governance activity dataset.
- Final dashboard and documentation.
- Final candidate incentive models and formula documentation.
- Final controlled incentive pilot findings report.
- At least one publication-ready research paper completed and submitted to an appropriate peer-reviewed venue.
- Community feedback report.
- Completed and submitted Governance Incentives Framework CIP.
- Governance integration pathway identifying any complementary CPS, treasury-withdrawal, protocol, or governance-action routes required for implementation.
- Handover documentation for future maintainers, data auditors, reviewers, or governance bodies.
- Final financial and milestone report.
- Governance action submitted to DReps seeking approval of the completed Governance Incentives Framework and its recommended incentive-model pathway.
Acceptance criteria
- Final framework, report, dataset, dashboard, model documentation, and pilot findings publicly available.
- Final framework traces recommendations to research, data, modeling, community feedback, and pilot evidence.
- Governance Incentives Framework CIP completed, published, and submitted through the established CIP process.
- Governance integration pathway documented and governance action submitted to DReps for consideration.
- Final financial and delivery reporting completed according to administration and audit requirements.
# Metrics and KPIs
## 1. Framework Development
Governance Incentives Mapping: Completed by end of Month 2
First Framework draft: by end of Month 4
## 2. Active Community Engagement (12 month period)
Unique Governance actors engaged: 50+
Public Workshops held: 10+
Feedback Documentation: Material stakeholder feedback documented and incorporated or addressed with rationale.
Public Progress Updates: 12 monthly public project updates published.
## 3. Modeling of Incentives
Parameter validation: 100% of parameters are available
Preliminary models archived & available: 100% (while website is maintained by us)
Simulation Scenarios: 50+ scenarios
Failure-Mode Testing Against: anti-gaming, anti-concentration, and budget constraints.
Developer Feedback: positive feasibility assessment
## 4. Data Engineering & Governance Monitoring
Monitoring service availability: ≥99%
Data processing and database update latency: <1 hour
Data Documentation: Published datasets include definitions, sources, methodology, and known limitations.
## 5. Website and Dashboard
Website & Dashboard Launch: On schedule (Milestones)
Amount of meaningful Dashboards created: 5+
Page Load Speed: <3 seconds
## 6. Administration
Timeline Adherence: 95%+ of deliverables finished on time
Milestones Reported: 100%
Risk Management: 100% of high and critical risks have an owner & mitigation plan.
Public Reporting: 12 monthly progress reports
## 7. Research (IOR dependency)
Research Question: 10+ research questions submitted
Research Output: 1+ publication-ready research paper completed and submitted for peer review
Experiment: pilot-related research questions addressed and findings documented
State-of-the-Art Evidence Review: completed and published by end of Month 4
## 8. Pilot
Pilot Findings Report: Pilot methodology, results, deviations, limitations, and implications published
# Team / Track Record
In late 2024, Sebastian and Seomon met at the Cardano Tech Hackathon shortly before the Constitution Summit. There, they began examining Cardano governance incentives and developed an initial model for rewarding governance actors. A few months later, they stepped back to define the underlying problem more rigorously, resulting in CPS-0020 - Governance Stakeholder Incentivization [2]. They concluded that designing an effective incentive model for governance actors required a dedicated research and development effort rather than a side project. This proposal seeks the resources needed to undertake that work for the wider Cardano community.
### Seomon:
- Cardano Builder (https://zkpoker.io)
- Civics Committee member - elected on a governance incentives platform; Governance Incentives Working Group Lead
- Cardano Ambassador
- Constitutional Alternate Delegate
- Successfully closed out 10+ Catalyst proposals
### Sebastian Pereira:
- Led a project to design better citizen ID collection in Bolivia for the CAN (Comunidad Andina)
- Worked for the Bolivia Ministry of Planning as part of the Government Subsidy Department
- EMURGO Blockchain Instructor
- Copywriter on over 20 projects
- Co-creator of Cardano Smart developer bot
- Blockchain consultant
- Successfully closed out:
- Cardano Smart: AI assistant for documentation and on-chain/off-chain development - 170,000 ADA
- Smart Pack: parcels damage verification system on Cardano - 100,000 ADA
- Littlefish - Coordinating Action - 43,500 ADA
### Cerkoryn - Consultant and Research Contributor:
As part of the Cardano Incentives Working Group, Cerkoryn has proposed multiple CIPs addressing stake-pool incentives. His paper, Beyond Binary Outcomes: A Process-First Reward Design for dRep Compensation [8], analyzes how alternative reward mechanisms may affect participation, decentralization, and reward concentration, and informs his contribution to this proposal.
# Budget Summary
The proposal presents workstream-level allocations rather than every operational line item.
Budget area ADA
Conceptualization ₳445,000.00
Active Community Engagement ₳366,400.00
Modeling of Incentives ₳884,000.00
Data Engineering & Governance Monitoring ₳295,000.00
Website and Dashboard ₳253,333.33
Administration and Coordination ₳472,000.00
Science and Research ₳476,666.67
Pilot ₳333,333.33
Additional Costs (tooling, legal, and travel) ₳118,666.67
Contingency Reserve ₳437,328.00
Independent Audit and Oversight ₳126,239.00
Total ₳4,207,967.00
The detailed operational budget is maintained separately for audit, administration, and delivery management. This proposal presents only workstream-level allocations. The Website and Dashboard allocation covers 12 months of project delivery and six months of post-project maintenance.
# Expected Value and Impact
The Governance Incentives Framework will create value by reducing uncertainty before Cardano adopts permanent governance incentive mechanisms. Rather than assuming that increased activity or compensation automatically improves governance, the project will provide the research, data, models, public review processes, and controlled testing needed to evaluate which mechanisms create value and which introduce new risks.
### Reducing long-term incentive risk
This one-year R&D investment is intended to inform governance incentive mechanisms that could distribute substantial treasury funds for many years. Poorly designed incentives can create recurring costs without gaining substantial value by rewarding low-value activity, reinforcing concentration, encouraging gaming, excluding smaller actors, or requiring expensive redesign after implementation.
### Better-informed governance decisions
The current 2026–27 Net Change Limit permits up to ₳350 million in treasury withdrawals over its applicable period. The ₳4.21 million project budget represents approximately 1.20% of that limit, illustrating the scale of this one-time R&D investment relative to the treasury resources that governance mechanisms can influence over time.
### Reduced duplication and fragmentation
The project has already identified 49 related efforts, proposals, papers, tools, and initiatives. This will identify overlaps, gaps, and opportunities for coordination, therefore reducing the risk that the community funds duplicative work or develops incompatible approaches in parallel.
### Reusable public infrastructure
Without shared infrastructure, every future governance-incentive proposal may need to pay again for data collection, metric definition, analysis, and visualization. The project will create reusable datasets, pipelines, metrics, models, and dashboard components that reduce the setup cost of later governance research and monitoring.
### Tested incentive mechanisms
Candidate incentive mechanisms will be modeled and simulated against participation, reward distribution, voting-power concentration, gaming risks, budget sustainability, and other relevant criteria, informed by prior formal and Cardano-specific reward-design research [7, 8]. A controlled incentive pilot will provide practical evidence about at least one selected mechanism, subject to the project’s defined safeguards.
### Implementation readiness and accountability
The project will translate its findings into a submitted Governance Incentives Framework CIP and a practical pathway covering governance, treasury, protocol, and implementation needs. Public datasets, model assumptions, milestone reporting, financial oversight, and refund conditions will allow the community to scrutinize both the recommendations and the use of funds.
### Contributor sustainability
A better understanding of governance workloads, contribution types, and incentive requirements can help Cardano address burnout, attrition, inconsistent participation, and dependence on contributors with substantial personal or institutional resources.
# Risks and Challenges
## Risk Overview
The project faces potential risks across technical, organizational, community, and governance dimensions. This section lists some of the more likely risks, mitigation strategies and contingency plans.
### 1 Community Engagement
Risk: Low participation or skepticism limits project value. Probability: High | Impact: High
Mitigation: Monthly workshops, transparent documentation, continuous community engagement on different platforms (X, GitHub, YouTube, Cardano Forum, Intersect)
Contingency: Increase engagement activities, address concerns transparently, adjust communication strategy.
### 2 Governance Framework Changes
Risk: Framework changes invalidate recommendations. Probability: Medium | Impact: Medium
Mitigation: Monitor governance evolution, design flexible models, maintain leadership communication, plan updates.
Contingency: Develop alternative scenarios, update models if changes occur, extend timeline.
### 3 Technical Integration
Risk: Ledger integration faces technical obstacles. Probability: Low-Medium | Impact: Medium
Mitigation: Early developer engagement, technical planning, and architectural support.
Contingency: Develop alternative approaches, extend timeline, collaborate on protocol modifications.
### 4 Model Validation
Risk: Models may not accurately predict real-world participation patterns. Probability: Medium | Impact: High
Mitigation: Rigorous backtesting, sensitivity analysis, edge-case testing, expert review, Pilot program.
Contingency: Refine parameters, expand model complexity, extend validation timeline.
# Administration / Audit / Oversight Support
The budget includes ₳126,239.00 for Administration / Audit / Oversight Support. This allocation represents 3% of the complete project budget, including the audit allocation itself.
This allocation supports proportional administration and required independent auditing connected to the treasury withdrawal process. The goal is to provide accountability without creating unnecessary administrative overhead for a grant-style governance R&D project.
# Pilot / Controlled Experiment
The middle-out mechanism [8] will serve as an early controlled experiment, not as the project’s final incentive model. It will test how DReps respond to real financial incentives and whether predicted effects on participation, reward distribution, decentralization, and concentration persist when participants can adapt their behavior.
The pilot will examine sustained voting activity, which DRep types respond, strategic adaptation and gaming, and differences between observed reward distributions and model predictions. A script will apply the finalized pilot specification and distribute eligible ADA rewards with minimal technical overhead; findings will inform later comparison and refinement of candidate mechanisms.
The middle-out mechanism is the basis of the pilot. Before launch, parameters, safeguards, eligibility rules, and implementation details may be refined through research, simulation, technical testing, expert review, and community feedback; material changes will be documented publicly. Once launched, rules remain fixed except for predefined safety or termination conditions.
# Contingency use
The proposal includes a 12% contingency reserve of ₳437,328.00 for justified unforeseen costs during the 12-month project.
The contingency reserve is not an unrestricted spending line. Any use of contingency funds will be documented through milestones or financial reporting to the auditors.
# Refund Conditions
Unused restricted reserves, such as unused contingency or unused pilot funds, will be returned to the Cardano Treasury if they are not needed for the approved project scope. A final reconciliation will be published as part of the oversight reporting cycle. In the event of partial delivery or scope reduction, unspent funds associated with cancelled or reduced deliverables will be returned proportionally.
Input Output Research (IOR) includes research on governance incentives in its funded Cardano Vision 2026 proposal [9]. To avoid duplicating work already funded by the community, any overlapping research subjects will be coordinated with IOR. Where overlap makes a planned work package unnecessary, in whole or in part, the corresponding unused allocation will be returned to the Cardano Treasury.