Xerberus Labs

Grant Value : 20,000 ADA

Scope:

• Deliver Cardano Ballot Voting Analysis with creation of an analysis report

Deliverables:

A report, up to 20 pages long, analysing the Cardano Ballot Voting process. The report should including but not be limited to the following features:

• Visualisation of overall voting patterns.

• In-depth examination of any fraudulent activities, such as manipulation or potential failures within the voting system.

• Thorough highlighting of the robustness of the voting process, emphasising the role of independent vote verification in bolstering trust.

• Detailed exploration of voting patterns, including specifics on 'Yes', 'No', and 'Abstentions'.

• Inclusion of sample data tables within the report.

• Comprehensive conclusion on the vote's validity and fairness

Report:

• https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lOR1hc6-wpt7Z2R8Hga-dIda5_Mr6Yel/view?usp=sharing

Close-out Report:

• https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZTGsXRpLLG5o9Ikisibc-rT78EVBSxXr/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=102295201310683679603&rtpof=true&sd=true

Takeaways:

• There are very few cryptocurrencies that have even prototypes of decentralized governance and version control. Cardano leads the ecosystem together with Tezos and Polkadot.

  ~ The initial count of 771 votes for the CIP-1694 vote in Cardano might seem modest at fist glance. However, this number gains significance compared to the average voter turnouts in other contexts. For instance, the average turnout per proposal in Cardano's Catalyst Fund 10 was only 266, with the highest reaching 1768, considerably lower than the CIP-1694 turnout. Similarly, Polkadot's average voter turnout is recorded at 316, with the highest reaching 731, both below that of CIP-1694. This suggests a stronger engagement in Cardano's voting process for CIP-1694, even though it was more of a 'temperature check' rather than a decision on a critical change. The higher participation in CIP-1694, compared to both Catalyst and Polkadot, is noteworthy, particularly since both Catalyst and Polkadot involve funding delegation votes, whereas CIP-1692 was about a parameter change to the layer 1.