Argumentree brings structured argumentation to Cardano's Conway-era governance (CIP-1694). Any member can open a discussion on any governance action or Cardano topic — author the pro/con arguments or paste the action text for extraction — and build a hierarchical argument tree with the community. Connect Eternl, Lace or SecondFi. Automatic governance-action import and voting, delegating or DRep registration from inside the discussion are on the roadmap, wired up individually per DAO and chain on request. DReps carry a fiduciary duty to delegators — Argumentree gives them a structured place to document the why behind every vote.
Cardano's Conway era put on-chain governance in the hands of DReps, SPOs and the Constitutional Committee. Argumentree gives that community what forums can't: hierarchical argument trees behind every governance action, opened by any member as a discussion.
Connect with Eternl, Lace or SecondFi. Governance-action import and on-chain voting from inside the discussion are wired up on request.
Watch how a proposal becomes a structured pro/con argument tree — with Q&A, compromise and a permanent record of the reasoning.
Under CIP-1694 and the Conway era, ADA holders delegate voting power to DReps, and governance actions are ratified by three bodies. Community funding rounds run alongside as the innovation fund.
Ideas take shape on the forum, in the funding-round community and on X — the informal debate before anything reaches the chain.
A Conway governance action is submitted: treasury withdrawal, protocol-parameter change, hard fork, no-confidence, or constitution update.
Delegated Representatives (voting ADA holders' stake), Stake Pool Operators, and the Constitutional Committee each weigh in per the action type.
Actions meeting their thresholds are ratified and enacted; treasury funds flow, parameters change, or the constitution updates.
DReps carry a fiduciary duty to the ADA holders who delegate to them — which makes documenting the why behind each vote not just nice-to-have, but accountability.
CIP-1694 splits power three ways and gives each governance action its own approval path. It's the most structured on-chain governance in crypto — which makes the lack of structured discussion around it all the more glaring.
Delegated Representatives vote on all action types, carrying the stake of the ADA holders who delegate to them — one lovelace, one vote.
Guards the constitution, voting only on the constitutionality of actions — one member, one vote.
Stake Pool Operators weigh in on the highest-stakes actions — no-confidence, committee changes and hard forks.
| # | Governance action | Voted by | What it does |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Motion of no-confidence | DReps + SPOs | Establishes the community no longer trusts the constitutional committee. |
| 2 | Update committee / threshold | DReps + SPOs | Add or remove committee members, or change the vote threshold and terms. |
| 3 | Update constitution / proposal policy | DReps + CC | Amend the Cardano Constitution or the proposal-policy guardrails. |
| 4 | Hard-fork initiation | DReps + SPOs + CC | Trigger a protocol upgrade requiring a hard fork. |
| 5 | Protocol-parameter change | DReps + CC | Change on-chain parameters (fees, block size, governance settings). |
| 6 | Treasury withdrawal | DReps + CC | Move ADA out of the on-chain treasury to fund initiatives. |
| 7 | Info action | DReps + SPOs + CC | A non-binding, on-chain signal — no protocol effect, pure sentiment. |
Action types and voting bodies per CIP-1694 / the Conway ledger era. The Constitutional Committee votes on constitutionality; DReps and SPOs vote by stake. Confirm current thresholds in the official governance tool.
Cardano's own on-chain governance, its community funding rounds, and the DeFi DAOs building on it — connect a wallet and structure any governance action or funding proposal.
Cardano's Conway governance is fully live: the first on-chain constitution was ratified in February 2025 with 85% approval, and an updated constitution took effect in January 2026. DRep participation and thresholds continue to evolve through governance actions — confirm current mechanics in the official governance tool and on the Cardano forum.
The official governance tool handles the on-chain action; the deliberation around it is thin and unstructured.
Handles the on-chain action and voting; discussion is minimal and unstructured.
Thousands of proposals, flat comments — no way to map the argument for each.
Scattered, unsearchable, and disconnected from the on-chain action.
Cardano's on-chain governance is rigorously structured — but the discussion feeding it still happens in forums, funding-round comment sections and on X, where a DRep's reasoning is impossible to follow or verify.
Telegram, Discord and forum threads have no tools to organize arguments logically. Complex proposals become convoluted threads no one can follow.
There is no way to see the arguments for and against a proposal at a glance — the reasoning is buried across hundreds of messages.
Multiple groups debate the same topic in parallel, scattering the discussion into siloed, inefficient and untransparent conversations.
The fast pace of chat deters thoughtful responses. High message volume with no structure overwhelms newcomers and veterans alike — a real barrier to participation.
Groups attract like-minded members, limiting diversity of thought, while conversations wander off-topic and rarely resolve.
Without structured argument and source verification, false claims spread and go unchallenged in the noise.
Finding an old decision or the reasoning behind a past vote is cumbersome to impossible. The 'why' is lost the moment the thread scrolls away.
The lack of transparency in voters' opinions and reasoning drives disengagement — and the cost of bad decisions to a DAO treasury is high.
Argumentree replaces the flat thread with a structured argument tree — the reasoning behind every proposal, visible, rated and permanent. Not another voting tool: the layer that makes voting informed.
Every proposal is the root node; pro and con arguments branch beneath it and recurse into sub-arguments. The full logical structure of a debate is visible at a glance — not a flat thread. Every argument can be shared on social media, and arguments can be submitted anonymously — no user data stored, so no Q&A, Compromise or Review on that argument.
Arguments are rated by validity and impact on their parent, so the strongest points rise to the top of each pro/con list. The community weighs reasoning, not just volume.
On submission each argument is checked for duplication (over 90% similarity), toxicity, logical relation to its parent, and correct pro/con placement — keeping the tree clean and on-topic.
Voters ask proposal and argument authors direct questions; the most important questions get up-rated. Deliberation becomes a cooperative learning environment, not a shouting match.
Rejected proposals collect every argument against them so authors can adjust and resubmit (for example a 12-month, 1M ask becomes a phased 6-month, 500k plan). Guided Compromise digitally integrates Harvard Negotiation Project, Walton & McKersie, and Thomas-Kilmann methods.
Once a proposal has run, users evaluate and comment on its specific arguments against the goals and targets that were promised — achieved or not, why, why not. Planned: the review comments per argument feed 15+ industry-standard frameworks automatically — Post-Mortem, Post-Implementation Review, Variance Report, Earned Value Management and more.
An argument-ranking dashboard and a timeline slider of the tree show how consensus evolved — where a debate shifted from pro to con, which arguments surged, how opinion moved after key events.
The UI follows each member's language and new arguments are auto-translated into 10+ languages, so a global DAO deliberates together instead of splitting into language silos.
Our public blockchain governance demo tenants — open one, connect a wallet and see structured discussion in action on real chain topics.
Your community gets its own DAO governance tenant: sign up, choose the DAO governance use case, and your members sign in with your chain’s wallets. Proposal import and voting are wired up individually, on request.
Yes. Open any governance action or Cardano topic as a structured discussion today — author the pro/con arguments or paste the action text and let the extraction produce them — and connect Eternl, Lace or SecondFi. Automatic governance-action import and casting the vote, delegating or registering as a DRep from inside the discussion are on the roadmap, wired up individually per DAO and chain on request — until then, deliberate here and transact in your wallet.
Absolutely. DReps carry a fiduciary duty to their delegators, so publishing a structured argument tree for each vote provides real transparency and a durable record. Delegators can also ask direct questions through the Q&A feature.
Yes — open any funding proposal as a discussion today: paste the proposal text and the extraction produces the pros and cons, then the community rates, questions and refines them. Automatic import of funding-round proposals is wired up on request.
Eternl, Lace and SecondFi, matching the wallets wired into the platform's Cardano integration.
Sources: Cardano governance actions — Developer Portal · CIP-1694 — Cardano governance
Connect Eternl, Lace or SecondFi and document the reasoning behind every governance action.
The multi-chain overview and chain chooser for DAO governance discussion.
Structured pro/con arguments for Uniswap, Aave, ENS, Optimism and Arbitrum proposals.
Structured pro/con arguments for AIPs, grants and delegate decisions.
Structured pro/con arguments for Polkadot referenda.
How Argumentree structures DAO decision-making end to end.
The concepts behind on-chain and off-chain DAO governance.
Auditable governance records for DAOs and regulated organizations.