Voting Blocs

DFINITY Foundation's registered neuron (27) carries symbolic voting power; the foundation's operational neurons are not registered as known neurons.

Measures COORDINATION: groups of neurons that repeatedly vote together in tight time-windows. It does not rank influence.

Looking for who leads opinion? That's the Influence League →

Measured timing patterns among named governance neurons. Bubble size reflects each neuron's own voting power.

of the 41 named NNS neurons we map vote in repeatedly overlapping time windows

Blocs are measured from ballot-arrival timing, not from voting power. Combined they hold 3.9M VP, which is 0.52 percent of network deciding voting power.
As of the Aug 28 re-validation · 1081 proposals analyzed

Blocs

2 coordination · 0 scheduled

Share of network VP

0.52%

of 748.8M VP deciding power across the NNS

Independent voters

named neurons not in any measured bloc

Proposals analyzed

1081

Under watch: Jerry Banfield-LORIMER pair (tightest non-bloc pair, below threshold).

Coordination α

Coordination β

Scheduled

Independents

bubble area ∝ voting power

Bloc α includes WaterNeuron, a liquid-staking protocol whose voting power aggregates thousands of depositors.

Coordination bloc α

Coordination· 2 members

Members

99.99% of this bloc's VP is WaterNeuron; 1e0 holds ~125 VP.

See the pair evidence

Coordination bloc β

Coordination· 3 members

Members

0.03% of known-neuron VP; most votes arrive after the proposal is already decided (median 2.7h before deadline).

See the pair evidence

Timing cluster

Neurons that arrive in the same 60-second sample as the CO.DELTA / Gwojda / Ωmega-vote bloc but cast a different vote. Same-clock infrastructure signal; mechanism unknown. NOT a voting bloc and not counted in bloc stats.

Ωmega-reject · same-sample arrival with all three members of that bloc over the full stream (1081 proposals): Ωmega-vote 938/1005 = 0.933 (agreement 7), CO.DELTA △ 880/998 = 0.882 (agreement 19), Gwojda 866/1005 = 0.862 (agreement 70). Strongest co-arrival pair in the data set, above every pair inside that bloc, while casting the opposite vote almost every time.

Follow cluster

not a bloc, published for transparency

Nine named neurons that repeatedly arrive in the same 60-second sample as one another. We do NOT present them as a coordination bloc. Neurons that follow the same upstream neuron arrive together without being coordinated with each other, and ballot timing alone cannot separate the two cases. This group is shown because the structure is real and worth seeing, and because hiding a group we decided not to call a bloc would be the less honest option.

8YearGangDAO
Cybersecurity
DragginCorp
GEEKFACTORY
Sonic AMM
The Accumulators’ Neuron
Thyassa
cyberowl
αlpha-vote

Co-arrival rate: 0.532-0.562
Shared proposals: 588-613
Links: 36 of 36
Opening-burst share: 41%
Proposals voted: 603-625
First-voter rate: 0.408-0.426

Would form a bloc at a co-arrival rate of 0.55; excluded by coArrivalRateMin 0.60 (approved 2026-08-26)

All nine carry near-identical operational fingerprints: each votes on roughly 600 of the 1081 tracked proposals and is among the first voters on about 42% of them. Their pairwise co-arrival sits in a narrow band just above one half, far below the 0.877-0.903 measured inside the confirmed coordination bloc. About 41% of their co-arrivals fall in a proposal's opening burst. On the governance proposals we track, members that voted arrived in or immediately after the same sample as DFINITY Foundation. Taken together this reads as a shared upstream rather than coordination among the nine, but the mechanism is not observable on-chain and is reported as unknown, exactly as it is for a bloc.

Edge density is 1.00, so the density rule that separated the 2026-08-10 cluster does not apply here: this is a complete graph, and only the rate threshold and the reading above keep it out of the bloc layer. A discriminating measurement is designed and not yet run: recompute co-arrival within the group restricted to proposals the shared upstream did not vote on. Coordination would survive it, following would not.

Independent voters

· 36 neurons

Neurons that vote independently and are not part of any measured bloc.

Methodology

Voting blocs are measured from observed ballot-arrival timing of known NNS neurons, sampled every 60 seconds. A bloc = neurons that repeatedly cast matching votes within the same mid-stream sampling window; opening-burst co-arrival (many neurons voting seconds after a proposal opens) is excluded, as it reflects shared scheduling rather than coordination. Since 2026-08-10 a bloc edge additionally requires at least 10 mid-stream co-arrivals (absolute evidence floor), a co-arrival rate of at least 0.55 of shared proposals (raised to 0.60 on 2026-08-26 after the background band of public DFINITY followers reached the 0.55 line), and 90%+ vote agreement; a bloc edge also requires at least 50 shared proposals, because a co-arrival rate carries no meaning over a handful of them; and blocs are density-pruned so every member must be directly linked to at least half of the other members. The underlying mechanism (following configuration, shared hotkey control, or external automation) is not observable on-chain and is reported as unknown.

Bloc membership is a measured timing pattern. The underlying mechanism (following, shared control, or automation) is not observable on-chain.

Source: NNS Influence Indexer, /blocs joined with IC governance API per-neuron voting power

Back to Dashboard