rcada-drep-votes

RCADA DRep Governance Policy

This page explains how RCADA approaches on-chain governance, how votes are evaluated, and how to read the voting records published in this repository.

Our goal is to provide transparent, consistent, and accountable representation for delegators while supporting the long-term sustainability of the Cardano ecosystem.

---

Principles

RCADA’s governance approach is guided by the following principles:

• Constitution-first governance
  All actions are assessed against the Cardano Constitution and guardrails before any other consideration.

• Process matters as much as outcomes
  Strong ideas presented through weak governance processes are treated with caution.

• Long-term sustainability over short-term momentum
  We prioritise decisions that strengthen decentralisation, resilience, and institutional credibility.

• Transparency by default
  Every vote includes a public, written rationale explaining how and why the decision was reached.

---

How Votes Are Recorded

Each governance action is recorded as a single Markdown file containing:

1. Metadata (Index Card)
   At the top of each file is a structured metadata block that records:
   • Governance Action ID
   • Action type
   • Vote (Yes / No / Abstain)
   • Vote date and expiry
   • Status (Draft or Committed)

   This metadata is the single source of truth for what vote was cast.

2. Analysis & Findings
   Structured sections covering:
   • Constitutional and guardrails assessment
   • Governance and process quality
   • Impact and risk considerations
   • Optional internal scoring used as decision support
3. RCADA Rationale
   A full narrative explanation, written in the same style as RCADA’s historical DRep rationales.
   This section explains why the vote recorded above was cast.

Votes are not duplicated elsewhere in the document to avoid inconsistency or administrative overhead.

---

Use of Abstain Votes

An Abstain vote is an intentional governance signal, not a lack of participation.

RCADA may abstain when:

• The intent of a proposal is reasonable but execution or process quality is weak
• Proposals are bundled in a way that prevents granular decision-making
• An Info action is being used to imply endorsement without accountability

Abstentions are used to encourage better governance design, not to avoid responsibility.

---

Draft vs Committed Votes

• Draft
  Indicates analysis in progress. The vote has not yet been cast on-chain.

• Committed
  Indicates the vote has been submitted on-chain and is final.

Only Committed votes should be treated as authoritative governance actions.

---

Accountability to Delegators

This repository is intended to:

• Provide a permanent, auditable record of RCADA’s governance activity
• Allow delegators to understand not just what was voted, but why
• Ensure consistency across time, even as governance evolves

Delegators are encouraged to review past votes and rationales and to engage with RCADA if clarification is ever needed.

---

Closing Note

Governance is an evolving process.
RCADA’s methodology is designed to remain flexible while maintaining constitutional integrity, transparency, and respect for the collective stewardship of the Cardano ecosystem.