CIP-0204? | Holder Answers on Governance Actions

[GS1973]

Proposal: CIP-0204/README.md

This CIP defines a transaction metadata record, under label 1695, with which an ADA holder answers Yes, No or Abstain on governance actions, signed with the holder's stake key (proof through required_signers). There is no survey to publish and no owner: an answer refers directly to the gov_action_id the ledger assigned, so every governance action on chain is a question from its submission until the ledger stops accepting votes on it. Anyone can recount the answers from the chain with the rules in the document.

• Relation to CIP-179. It follows CIP-179 in the proof through required_signers, the latest answer counting, and several answers per transaction. It differs in referring to governance actions directly instead of to a published survey; the Rationale explains why, and notes that this CIP could be folded into a survey format that adopts such a response type.
• Label. This PR also registers label 1695 in CIP-0010/registry.json (next to 1694, CIP-1694). It was neither registered nor used on mainnet before 2026-09-24.
• Reference implementation. The Voice of ADA Holders, live on mainnet: it lists the open governance actions, builds the answer transaction in the browser over CIP-30, and publishes a tally recountable from the chain. Signing was tested with real mainnet transactions from Eternl, Gero, Lace, Typhon and VESPR.

---

(Rendered Version)

[Crypto2099]

Overall, the CIP makes sense. The metadata is kept intentionally lean which helps both ledger state growth and tx fees that submitters must pay. It's good to provide a mechanism for individual holders to provide a voice and feedback on governance actions that require no third party outside of the blockchain itself.

[rphair]

@GS1973 I think this would be a welcome addition to a broader governance process even though not yet widely used.

We have another CIP which was created & merged to measure its own adoption (CIP-0149) with a hope of wider implementation upon any popular demand. Likewise this seems like a lightweight change that provides an easy path to a more widespread adoption & I think it should go through the CIP process easily with some feedback on the particulars (thanks @Crypto2099).

• To keep focusing on newer review points, please use the "Resolved conversation" button when each thread is resolved (it seems most have already been & review goes faster when the main thread is clean).

We can introduce this in Triage at the next CIP meeting (https://hackmd.io/@cip-editors/144) which isn't a deep review (only a confirmation) but should have time to have a look at your web implementation (voiceofadaholders.com) and you're welcome to attend the meeting to introduce your proposal (generally meetings are open to the public).

(The "deleted comment" was just removing a "Rendered Version" link which reviewers normally look for in the OP.)

[rphair]

@GS1973 thanks for coming to the CIP meeting today & introducing this. As you know the main consideration was that third parties be able to produce, consume, and organise this data provided under this metadata label & by your CIP method: and I believe everyone was in agreement about that.

• Please rename the containing directory ASAP to CIP-0204 and update the "Rendered Version" link in your OP accordingly. 🎉

As we observed with these other proposals standardising a single implementation:

• https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0171
• https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0190

... there may not be much review to challenge a CIP which already proves its concept and demonstrates feasibility and performance. So please comment again if review appears not to be going anywhere & we might make a final call for review at that point (to merge this if undisputed).

@Crypto2099 @Ryun1 @thenic95 @gitmachtl @gufmar - I would also hope that any of you could give this a deep scrubbing to see if any improvement to function, expectations, terminology, or anything should be made before proceeding to standardise this.

[GS1973]

@rphair thank you, and thanks to everyone at yesterday's CIP meeting for the time and the kind reception.

Done:

• the directory is renamed to CIP-0204 (and thanks for committing the CIP: 204 header yourself)
• the Proposal and Rendered Version links in the description now point to CIP-0204
• the label 1695 entry in CIP-0010/registry.json now reads "CIP-0204 - Holder answers on governance actions"

@Crypto2099 @Ryun1 @thenic95 @gitmachtl @gufmar any review is very welcome, on the record format, the counting rules, the terminology or anything else. The reference implementation is live at https://voiceofadaholders.com and its code is public at https://github.com/GS1973/voice-of-ada-holders, so every rule in the CIP can be checked against a working tally on mainnet.