Early Draft — A Specialized, Structured Evolution of CIP-1694 Governance Model

[Gallophostrix]

Hello everyone,

I'm Mikhaïl, a community member who has been observing and participating in discussions around Cardano's governance evolution for a while. Together with a small group of fellow community members, we've been reflecting on some challenges we are currently seeing, particularly around decision-making speed, structural coordination between DReps, Project Catalyst, the core Cardano protocol, and Intersect’s role, which has been quite controversial recently.

I would like to share a very early draft of a possible refinement to the CIP-1694 governance model. This is not a complete, finalized proposal. Rather, it is a starting point for discussion,
meant to inspire further ideas and improvements (I am aware that a lot of details are missing in our draft).

The goal here is not to criticize or replace the existing system, but to build upon it, learning from its successes and challenges, and to propose simple structural evolutions that could strengthen governance scalability, coordination, and efficiency as Cardano grows.

I deeply welcome any feedback (positive, critical, or creative) and especially any suggestions on how to refine or evolve these ideas.

Objective

Propose a specialization and structuring layer to the current CIP-1694 governance framework, aiming to:

• Improve the speed and efficiency of decision-making,
• Strengthen the coordination between governance actors (DReps, Project Catalyst, Intersect, Cardano Foundation),
• Reinforce expertise in proposal analysis,
• Maintain or even enhance community sovereignty,
• Leave the door open for future discussions around DRep and committee compensation models.

Core Concept

1. Specialized DReps

Upon delegation, each DRep chooses a primary domain of expertise (Technical, Budget, Governance, Marketing, etc.).
They work primarily within specialized Committees according to their chosen domain.

2. Specialized Committees

Each domain forms a Committee composed of its DReps.
Committees are responsible for analyzing incoming proposals related to their domain.
Within each Committee, DReps elect a small group of representatives who participate in cross-domain coordination.

3. Inter-domain Council

A small council made of representatives from each Committee.
It coordinates, resolves conflicts, and finalizes structured proposal syntheses before voting.

4. Constitutional Committee (CC)

Retains its role to:

• Check the constitutionality of proposals,
• Define whether all DReps or only specific committees should vote,
• Supervise transparency and coherence,
• Be subject to impeachment if necessary (already foreseen in current governance design).

5. Voting Mechanism

All DReps vote on major strategic or financial proposals.
Specialized DRep voting is allowed only for narrowly scoped, domain-specific matters, and only after CC validation.

6. SPO Ratification

SPOs remain the final technical safeguard, ratifying approved decisions.

How this would address current challenges

• Decision-making is slow: Specialized committees allow better filtering, Inter-domain council ensures final syntheses are ready before global voting (trading preparation time for much faster and cleaner final vote),
• Poor coordination between actors/lack of understanding of each role: specialized and horizontal committees bring focused expertise, the Inter-domain council centralizes discussions across domains,
• Risk of uninformed or incoherent DRep voting: committees provide a limited frame for each DRep, and provide structured analyses before each vote, giving DReps high-quality information,
• Risk of lobbying or manipulation: all major decisions are object to a global DRep vote, under the CC supervision, not just committee approval.

Example Workflow

1. A community member submits a proposal for adjusting staking parameters.

2. The proposal is sent to the Technical and Budget Committees.

3. Each Committee analyzes the proposal in detail.

4. Their elected representatives discuss the proposal within the Inter-domain Council.

5. A structured synthesis is produced with clearly presented options.

6. The Constitutional Committee validates that all DReps should vote.

7. A global DRep vote is held.

8. SPOs ratify the final outcome.

Open Areas for Further Discussion

• DRep and Committee Compensation:
  Should DReps and representatives receive incentives based on participation, performance, or responsibility?

• Optimization of Governance Timelines:
  How long should Committees have to prepare and publish analyses? How to balance speed with quality?

• Formalization of External Advisors:
  Should Committees have access to external experts elected or approved by the DReps themselves?

• Transparency Standards:
  Should there be stricter publication requirements for debates, committee meetings, and synthesis documents?

Conclusion

This is a first draft, a starting point for discussion, not a final proposal.
The spirit of this idea is not to criticize Cardano’s current governance (which has made impressive progress) but rather to build upon it carefully, learning from experience to make it more efficient, scalable, and resilient.

I look forward to hearing your opinions, criticisms, improvements, and suggestions to refine or challenge this vision!

Thanks to everyone for reading.

TL;DR

• Proposal: Improve CIP-1694 by adding DRep specialization and structured committees.

• Goal: Faster decisions, better coordination, stronger expertise, full transparency.

• Model: DReps work in domains, cross-domain Council resolves overlaps, final votes stay democratic.

• Based on existing structures (DReps, Intersect, SPOs), not a full redesign.

[Ryun1]

Hey @Gallophostrix

Thanks for opening a discussion on this
clearly has been thought through and was a good read

my first feedback would be to fully describe the problems that this could solve
backing up this with on-chain data would be nice (where possible)

[Gallophostrix]

Hello @Ryun1,

Thank you for your feedback! We are currently working on a document to explain this more clearly, but we first wanted to gauge its usefulness and potential impact on the ecosystem. I must admit, at this point, it feels a bit like sending a message in a bottle. Nevertheless, your response is very encouraging, and we will definitely continue working on it. We're looking forward to your future feedback!

Thanks again!