This is setup as a plutocracy, not a democracy, so this doesn't make a lot of sense. Power is decentralized based on skin-in-the-game, and matches risk to those who receive reward. Your suggestion would increase risk for those that hold ADA based on the whims of those without skin-in-the-game. This leads to multiple risks sets. Basically the problem of the passenger in the back of the plane yelling, "I think I'm more qualified to fly the plane! Who's with me?!??" - It is likely the mob can be riled up, as mobs-without-skin-in-the-game are highly incentivized to cause destruction.

That’s an interesting and important angle—let’s explore what that could mean:

1. Stake Pool Centralization

Power imbalance risk: Although Cardano is designed to be decentralized through stake pool operators, a small number of pools or entities could still end up controlling a large portion of the stake.

By 2026, if delegation habits don’t change or major players dominate rewards, we might see “decentralization theater”—where it looks decentralized, but real control is unequal.

2. Governance Concentration (Voltaire Era)

Cardano’s governance system will rely on on-chain voting and treasury funding.

Those with large ADA holdings will have more voting power, similar to a plutocracy model.

By 2026, this could lead to:

Whales or organizations influencing protocol changes.

Smaller holders feeling underrepresented.

Governance capture if voter turnout is low or apathetic.

3. IOHK / Emurgo / Cardano Foundation Influence

Even though Cardano aims for community governance, the three founding entities still hold a lot of influence.

If by 2026, real control hasn't shifted toward the broader community, it may raise concerns of founder centralization.

4. Geopolitical or Socioeconomic Imbalance

Cardano’s focus on developing nations (e.g. Africa) is noble, but if the technical and financial control remains in the hands of Western institutions or whales, it could result in:

Local populations using the system without governing it.

Unequal benefit extraction, where tech is built “for” rather than “with” people.

In Summary: “Unequal Power Cardano 2026” Could Mean...

Centralization in stake delegation.

Governance captured by whales.

Founding orgs holding outsized influence.

Socioeconomic imbalances between developers and end users.

Want me to turn this into a short essay or article-style piece? Or explore how Cardano could prevent this imbalance?

agree for a Hard Cap for Dreps. I can create more Dreps or more self voters, would mean more decentralized way of voting.

I desagree DREP's will beat against whales, they gather a lot of ada of small fishes,

Not totally in favour of a hard cap. Although I would support a percentage cap on DREP's, i.e., DREP cannot have more then 5% of total voting power. The comunity should confirm what that percentage cap should be.