Loading...
Governada measures governance quality for DReps, Stake Pool Operators, and Constitutional Committee members on the Cardano network. Every score is computed from on-chain data, calibrated through absolute scoring curves, and decayed over time to reflect current behavior. Scores measure process and engagement, not political positions.
Absolute calibration. Raw pillar scores are mapped through piecewise linear calibration curves to produce a 0-95 score. Your actions determine your score — independent of how other participants perform. This means every DRep and SPO has clear, actionable steps to improve, and if everyone improves, all scores go up. No zero-sum competition.
Temporal decay. Older governance activity decays exponentially with a 180-day half-life. A DRep who was active six months ago but silent now will see their score decline — governance is an ongoing commitment.
Importance weighting. Not all proposals are equal. Hard forks and constitutional changes carry 3x weight. Treasury withdrawals over 1M ADA and parameter changes carry 2x. Close-margin proposals (decided by less than 20% margin) receive a 1.5x bonus.
Confidence gating. Entities with insufficient data have their tiers capped. DReps with fewer than 5 votes are capped at Emerging, 5-9 votes at Bronze, and 10-14 votes at Silver. Only those with 15+ votes can reach Gold and above.
Momentum tracking. Linear regression over recent score history reveals whether a DRep or SPO is improving or declining. DRep momentum uses a 14-day window; SPO momentum uses a 30-day window.
Every DRep receives a composite score from 0 to 100, computed from four weighted pillars. Each pillar is calibrated through absolute scoring curves, meaning your actions directly determine your score. The composite formula:
Score = (Engagement Quality x 0.35) + (Effective Participation x 0.25) + (Reliability x 0.25) + (Governance Identity x 0.15)Engagement Quality
Measures the depth of governance participation through three layers: rationale provision rate (40%), AI-assessed rationale quality (40%), and deliberation signal (20%) which captures vote diversity, dissent rate, and proposal type breadth.
Effective Participation
Evaluates voting coverage weighted by proposal importance and temporal decay. Close-margin proposals (decided by <20% margin) receive a 1.5x bonus, rewarding participation on contentious decisions.
Reliability
Tracks consistency and dependability of governance engagement across four sub-components, only counting epochs where proposals existed. Voting within the governance window is sufficient — speed of response is not measured.
Governance Identity
Rewards DReps who provide meaningful identity and intent information. Quality-tiered field scoring (not binary has/hasn't) across CIP-119 metadata fields, plus community trust signals.
Composite scores map to six tiers shared by both DReps and SPOs. Tiers create emotional weight, competitive pressure, and shareability. Low-confidence entities are capped at lower tiers regardless of score.
Emerging
0–39
New or inactive. Insufficient data to rank higher.
Bronze
40–54
Basic participation. Starting to engage with governance.
Silver
55–69
Consistent engagement. Reliable governance contributor.
Gold
70–84
Strong and sustained. Quality participation across pillars.
Diamond
85–94
Elite governance performance across all dimensions.
Legendary
95–100
Exceptional — by definition, very few entities reach this tier.
Stake Pool Operators are scored on their governance participation using the same tier system as DReps. The four pillars are tailored to SPO governance behavior, with absolute calibration curves and a 30-day momentum window.
Score = (Participation x 0.35) + (Deliberation Quality x 0.25) + (Reliability x 0.25) + (Governance Identity x 0.15)Participation
Importance-weighted vote coverage with temporal decay. Close-margin bonus is applied at the proposal level (not per-SPO) to ensure fair weighting across all pools.
Deliberation Quality
Multi-signal measure of deliberation depth, including bot-detection via vote timing analysis.
Reliability
Proposal-aware reliability that only penalizes inactivity during epochs with active proposals. Includes engagement consistency (steady > bursty).
Governance Identity
Evaluates pool identity quality and community trust. Governance statements are scored via a keyword quality checklist rather than pure character count.
Constitutional Committee members receive a Constitutional Fidelity Score from 0 to 100, measuring how faithfully they uphold their constitutional mandate. A CC member who votes against community sentiment but provides thorough constitutional reasoning scores well. The philosophy: do they vote in line with the constitution? In ambiguous cases, do they justify their votes enough to back it up?
Participation
Vote rate on governance actions. Non-participation is the most basic accountability failure for constitutional guardians.
Constitutional Grounding
Do they cite relevant constitutional articles when voting? Measures how well CC members ground their decisions in the constitution they are sworn to uphold.
Reasoning Quality
How thorough is their reasoning? AI-assessed depth and clarity of rationale provided with each vote. In ambiguous cases, strong reasoning matters most.
Governada maps every DRep onto six governance dimensions derived from their voting patterns. AI-classified proposal relevance scores determine which votes contribute to each dimension. Each dimension score ranges from 0 to 100, with 50 as neutral. Temporal decay and amount-weighting ensure recent, material votes carry more weight. The dominant dimension determines a DRep’s “personality archetype” (e.g., The Guardian, The Pioneer), with hysteresis to prevent flickering between labels.
Treasury Conservative
Preference for fiscal restraint. "No" votes on treasury proposals signal conservatism.
Treasury Growth
Preference for ecosystem investment. "Yes" votes on treasury proposals with quality rationale score highest.
Decentralization
Priority on distributing power. Factors in DRep size tier and voting breadth across proposal types.
Security
Priority on protocol safety. Measures caution rate on security-relevant proposals and rationale depth.
Innovation
Openness to protocol evolution. Support for innovation proposals (40%), InfoAction engagement (30%), and voting breadth (30%).
Transparency
Emphasis on governance accountability. AI rationale quality (60%), provision rate (20%), and metadata completeness (20%).
The GHI measures the health of Cardano governance as a whole, not individual entities. It combines eight components across three categories into a single 0-100 score, tracked epoch-by-epoch. Raw metrics are calibrated through piecewise linear curves before weighting. Because individual scores use absolute calibration, when DReps, SPOs, and CC members collectively improve their governance behavior, the GHI rises — making Governada a tool that measurably improves Cardano governance quality.
Engagement (35%)
DRep Participation
Median effective participation score across all active DReps.
SPO Participation
SPO governance vote coverage weighted by importance and temporal decay.
Citizen Engagement
Delegation rate (62.5%) and delegation dynamism/churn (37.5%).
Quality (40%)
Deliberation Quality
Rationale quality (50%), debate diversity (30%), and voting independence (20%).
Governance Effectiveness
Proposal resolution rate (40%), decision velocity (30%), and throughput (30%).
CC Constitutional Fidelity
Aggregate CC participation, constitutional grounding, and reasoning quality.
Resilience (25%)
Power Distribution
Edinburgh Decentralization Index composite (Nakamoto, Gini, Shannon entropy, HHI, Theil, concentration, tau) plus DRep onboarding rate.
System Stability
DRep retention (50%), score volatility (30%), and infrastructure health (20%).
GHI bands: Strong (76+), Good (51-75), Fair (26-50), Critical (<26)
All scoring data is sourced from the Cardano blockchain via the Koios API, a community-maintained, open-source query layer for Cardano. Governada does not run its own indexer — we consume the same public data available to every researcher.
Sync pipeline
Intermediate data is cached in Supabase (PostgreSQL) for query performance. The sync pipeline includes self-healing: failed syncs are retried with exponential backoff, and health is monitored via the System Stability GHI component.
Researchers, journalists, and governance participants are welcome to reference Governada scores in their work. We suggest the following formats:
Individual DRep score
“[DRep Name] holds a Governada DRep Score of [X]/100 ([Tier] tier) as of epoch [N]. Source: governada.io/drep/[drep_id]”GHI reference
“Cardano governance health stands at [X]/100 ([Band]) per the Governada Governance Health Index, epoch [N]. Source: governada.io/governance/health”Academic citation
Governada. (2026). Scoring Methodology: DRep Score, SPO Governance Score, CC Constitutional Fidelity Score, Governance Health Index. Retrieved from https://governada.io/methodologyAll scores are point-in-time snapshots. Always include the epoch number or date for reproducibility. Score history is available via the Governada API for longitudinal analysis.
Scoring models are open, reproducible, and continuously refined. The source code for all scoring algorithms is available in the lib/scoring/ directory of our codebase.
Questions or feedback? Join the discussion on GitHub