ADApolis Methodology

1. Overview

ADApolis GovScore is a composite participation metric computed from on-chain Cardano governance data. It measures how actively and consistently a DRep participates in governance, adjusted to surface high-quality DReps who are under-delegated.

In Phase 1, GovScore focuses on a single dimension: participation rate — the percentage of eligible governance proposals a DRep voted on. Future phases will add dimensions measuring rationale quality, consistency, delegator alignment, and more.

All scores are computed from publicly available on-chain data and are fully auditable. The entire computation pipeline is deterministic and reproducible.

2. Phase 1 Score: Participation Rate

Raw GovScore = (Votes Cast / Eligible Proposals) × 100

3. Quadratic ADA-Power Dampening

A DRep's Adjusted GovScore is the Raw GovScore multiplied by a dampening factor based on how much ADA is delegated to them. This creates a gentle curve that surfaces high-quality, under-delegated DReps without punishing large DReps for receiving delegation.

Adjusted GovScore = Raw GovScore × D

where D = 1 / (1 + log₁₀(ADA_M + 1) / 4)
and ADA_M = ADA delegated in millions

4. What GovScore Does NOT Measure (Phase 1)

Be explicit about what this score is not. Clarity on limitations is essential to credibility.

• ✗Does not measure vote direction or outcomes. ADApolis does not care whether a DRep voted YES or NO on any proposal. Only whether they voted.
• ✗Does not measure rationale quality. While a DRep may have published detailed reasoning for their votes (CIP-100 rationales), Phase 1 GovScore does not evaluate them. (Coming in Phase 2.)
• ✗Does not measure cross-channel consistency. Whether a DRep's Forum posts, Twitter statements, and GitHub activity align with their votes. (Coming in Phase 2+.)
• ✗Does not measure delegator alignment. Whether delegators agree with or are satisfied by a DRep's voting record. (Coming in Phase 2+.)
• ✗Does not measure responsiveness or community engagement. How quickly or thoroughly a DRep responds to delegator questions. (Coming in Phase 2+.)

5. Planned Score Expansions

Phase 1 is intentionally narrow. Future phases will add richer signals to GovScore, all while maintaining the Cardinal Rule above.

All expansions will be published in advance with full transparency. Phase 1 scores will never be retroactively changed; new dimensions will be added as separate metrics.

6. Data Sources and Transparency

7. Limitations and Known Issues

Intellectual honesty requires naming the shortcomings of this approach.

• Phase 1 Scope

  Participation rate alone is not a complete picture of DRep quality. A DRep could attend every vote but provide poor reasoning, miss nuance, or vote counter to delegator interests. Phase 1 deliberately omits these dimensions. Do not interpret a high Raw GovScore as an endorsement of a DRep's wisdom — only their attendance.

• DRep Metadata Coverage

  DReps who have not published CIP-119 metadata appear on the Scoreboard with a generated avatar and no bio. This does not mean they are inactive — only that they haven't registered metadata on-chain.

• New DReps

  A newly-registered DRep may have excellent recent performance but rank lower than an old DRep with mediocre participation — because they had fewer eligible proposals to vote on. This bias favors seniority. Future phases will add "growth normalization" to weight recent activity higher.

• Koios API Lag

  Koios is decentralized and community-maintained. Data may lag the chain by 1–2 blocks. In rare cases, if the Koios infrastructure experiences downtime, scores may not update on schedule.

• Proposal Timing

  Governance actions do not occur on a fixed schedule. Some epochs have many proposals; others have none. A DRep in a quiet epoch may appear less active than one in a busy epoch, even if their consistency is identical. This is a feature of Cardano governance, not a measurement error.