May 16, 2025 Budget Comm Minutes
Last updated
Last updated
Name
Attendance
Role
Voting Seat (Y/N)
Lloyd Duhon
Yes
Budget Secretary
Dimmitri
Voting Member
Megan Hess
Voting Member
Dave Dionisio
Observer
Marc Gorman
Program Manager Budget Task Force
Jack Briggs
Interim Executive Director, Intersect
Kriss Baird
Voting Member, IOG, Catalyst
Kristijan Kowalsky
Voting Member, Tweag
Shunsuke Murasaki
Former Voting Member, Mentor, Emurgo
Transcript:
centered on updating the committee on the status of Net Change Limits and the Budget Info Action, including strategies for upcoming treasury withdrawals.
Key discussions involved seeking DREP preference for different withdrawal options and addressing the ongoing challenge of DREP fatigue.
committee addressed a critical issue concerning a member's conduct and unauthorized information sharing.
Topic
Discussion
Action Items
Net Change Limit (NCL) Status
The 350 million ADA NCL passed, but a 200 million ADA NCL is currently at 41% approval and is projected to pass. A 300 million NCL is also on-chain. The task force is passively observing these new NCLs but will need to make big decisions if the 200 million limit passes, potentially impacting the budget info action or prompting a push for the 300 million limit. There's significant misinformation about NCLs.
Task Force to plan options if the 200M ADA NCL passes.
Budget Info Action (BIA) Update
The BIA for 275 million ADA, comprising 39 proposals, has been raised and is currently being voted on by DREPs. This BIA is an allocation, with treasury withdrawals being separate. More effort is needed to encourage DREP voting on the BIA.
Increase efforts to encourage DREP voting on the BIA.
DREP Engagement & Fatigue
There's growing DREP fatigue due to numerous recent governance actions, leading to decreased participation in engagement activities. This highlights a need for more efficient and less burdensome ways to engage DREPs in the future.
Focus on developing meaningful DREP engagement strategies for the future that avoid burdening them.
Treasury Withdrawal Strategy
Various strategies for treasury withdrawals are being considered, including single, multiple, or categorized withdrawals. Each option has implications for DREP workload, ICC workload, and contract provisions. DREPs are seeking more granularity at this stage.
Continue defining the treasury withdrawal strategy, considering workload and contract implications.
BIA to Treasury Withdrawal Nuance
The BIA is an allocation, while treasury withdrawals (which have a higher 67% threshold) are where NCLs come into play. There's a need to clearly communicate this distinction to the community.
Develop communication to clarify the difference between BIAs (allocations) and treasury withdrawals (subject to NCLs).
Proposed Withdrawal Options (for DREP Preference Poll)
Six options for treasury withdrawals were presented: A) Single withdrawal, B) Thematic categories, C) Five brackets by Ecclesia support (50-60%, 60-70%, etc.), D) By vendors, E) By value (e.g., >10M ADA), F) 39 individual withdrawals. Options A and F were considered least viable due to lack of granularity or administrative burden.
Run a preference poll within Ecclesia for DREPs to rank proposed withdrawal options.
Ensuring Project Funding & Preventing Disenfranchisement
Concern was raised that certain withdrawal strategies, particularly those focusing only on high-percentage projects, could disenfranchise smaller community projects that passed Ecclesia but might fall below higher treasury withdrawal thresholds. Intersect's current BIA includes all 39 proposals that cleared Ecclesia.
Jack Briggs to incorporate clear consequences of each withdrawal option into communications, highlighting potential impact on smaller projects.
Smart Contract Framework & Milestones
Funds will be released to vendors via a smart contract framework based on milestones, providing safeguards and reducing the need for constant on-chain DREP approvals. This mechanism also addresses the "cliff edge" funding problem.
Reiterate the role of smart contract milestones in funding and oversight in communications.
Budget Committee Member Conduct
An ongoing issue was raised regarding a budget committee member (Jose) who has allegedly leaked non-public information and made defamatory statements. This is a charter violation requiring formal action when quorum is available.
Lloyd Duhon to formally address the committee member conduct issue with the committee chair (Steve Lupin) when quorum is present on Monday. Consider escalation via Intersect's arbitration route for member conduct.
Governance Challenges & Path Forward
The current governance process is complex and lacks easy answers or a "playbook." The committee acknowledges its difficulty but is committed to working together to find a path forward and continuously improve the process.
Continue to actively engage in finding solutions and improving the budget governance process.