# November 24th, 2025 Budget Comm Minutes

## **Budget Committee Weekly Meeting — November 24th, 2025**

**Date:** November 24, 2025\
**Attendance:**

* **Committee Members:**
  * Jose Velazquez
  * Kriss Baird
  * Kris Kowalski – Chair
  * Megan Hess – Vice Chair
  * Mercy
  * Nico Cerny
  * Rita Mistry
  * Shunsuke (Shinsuke) Murasaki
  * Lloyd Duhon – Secretary
* **Project Manager:** Simo Simovic
* **Executive Leadership:**
  * Jack Briggs – Interim Executive Director (joined during meeting)

**Quorum:** Confirmed at start of meeting.

***

### **1. Opening and Agenda Overview**

Lloyd opened the meeting, noted the end of year approaching, and confirmed quorum.

#### **Primary Agenda Items:**

1. **Net Change Limit (NCL)** — review of draft, rationale, timeline, and readiness for Board submission.
2. **Budget Process Info Action Draft** — review of language, timeline for forum publication, and path to governance action.

The goal of today’s call is to finalize both drafts so they can be submitted to the **Intersect Board** for approval and then posted to the **GovTool Forum** for a two-week feedback period. The subsequent governance action would then ideally go on chain in **early January 2026**.

Jack requested a **clear slide summarizing Board asks and next steps** by tomorrow morning for inclusion in a Board deck.

***

### **2. Net Change Limit (NCL) Draft Review**

#### **2.1 Context and Timeline Requirements**

* The **2025 NCL expires at epoch 604** on **January 4, 2026**.
* Without a new NCL effective at **epoch 605 (Jan 5, 2026)**, **all Treasury withdrawals would be blocked**, halting ecosystem funding.
* The draft NCL under review covers the period **epoch 605 → epoch 713** (ending **July 3, 2027**).

#### **2.2 Proposed NCL: 350 Million ADA (18-Months)**

The committee discussed the rationale for using an **18-month NCL** rather than the previously considered 6-month or 12-month alternatives.

**Primary reasons for 18-month NCL:**

* Avoid forcing DReps to vote on multiple NCLs in close succession (low appetite for repeated votes).
* Combine:
  * Remaining unspent funds from 2025 NCL, and
  * Actual 2025 inflows (January–December),\
    resulting in an approximate **350M ADA available spend** baseline.
* Establish a **new annual NCL cycle beginning in June each year**, avoiding recurring holiday-season governance actions.
* Move the ecosystem closer to the long-term vision where NCL =\
  \&#xNAN;**(previous-year actual inflows) × (% chosen by DReps)**.\
  Today’s NCL is a practical “baby step” toward this model.

#### **2.3 Discussion: Is 350M ADA Sufficient?**

* **Chris Baird** expressed concern that 350M ADA may be **too low** considering potential budget needs across strategic priorities.
* Committee acknowledged that if new opportunities arise (e.g., major stablecoin liquidity requirements), DReps can **raise an additional NCL** later in the year.
* The proposed amount is considered **conservative but defensible**, balancing:
  * investment opportunity,
  * Treasury stewardship, and
  * governance practicality.

#### **2.4 Draper CF Budget Context**

* Draper’s anticipated multi-year budget (\~70M ADA total) will **not** be withdrawn in a lump sum.
* Expected Treasury withdrawals may occur in **3–4 tranches**, with \~20M ADA withdrawn in 2026 and subsequent withdrawals in later years.
* NCL governs **withdrawals**, not budgets — thus Draper’s multi-year plan does not affect near-term NCL capacity.

***

### **3. Draft Corrections & Updates During Meeting**

Key updates made to the draft:

* **Epoch dates corrected:**
  * Start: epoch **605**, January 5, 2026
  * End: epoch **713**, July 3, 2027
* **Rationale updated** to reflect:
  * inflows from 2025,
  * carry-over from 2025 NCL,
  * consolidation of 6-month + 12-month NCL into one 18-month NCL.
* Language revised to reflect the **conservative posture** of the proposal.
* References to last year's unique circumstances (e.g., 67% threshold discussion) **removed** — no longer relevant.
* Placed emphasis on:
  * predictable annual NCL cycle
  * reducing holiday-period governance fatigue
  * basing NCL on **actual inflows**, not projections

#### **3.1 Data Needed for Finalization**

Jack requested the exact figure of ADA withdrawn from the Treasury “**to the Lovelace**” for 2025.\
Lloyd will obtain accurate figures from **Thomas Linseth’s Treasury tracking tool**.

#### **3.2 Proposal Amount & Rounding Approach**

* Committee reaffirmed policy of rounding to a **clean number**, within ±5% of the calculation.
* If the remaining surplus differs slightly (e.g., inflows 290M + surplus 77M = 367M), we **still round to 350M ADA** for clarity and governance practicality.

***

### **4. Governance Considerations & Constitutionality**

#### **4.1 Necessity of Constitutional Committee (CC) Review**

Nico provided his constitutional perspective:

* The NCL **does not execute on-chain changes**, making it **not necessarily subject** to mandatory CC ratification.
* Treasury withdrawals only require:
  * DRep approval **>50%**, and
  * existence of an approved NCL.
* CC members may differ philosophically, but practically:
  * A valid NCL **only requires DRep threshold**, not CC approval.
* For clarity, the Governance Action should **explicitly state**:
  * The NCL is an **Info Action** with no direct on-chain effect.
  * The Constitution assigns NCL approval responsibility to DReps.

The committee agrees this clarification will be added.

***

### **5. Need for Public Education and Transparency**

The committee discussed the importance of:

* publishing Dimitri’s long-term Treasury sustainability model,
* making all supporting artifacts available through a **single consolidated landing page**,
* updating the ecosystem on:
  * actual Treasury inflows,
  * actual outflows,
  * unused vs. withdrawn vs. spent funds.

Jack suggested this documentation also be linked in the **GovTool forum post** and the governance action itself.

Additionally:

* The persistent community myth that Treasury withdrawals impact ADA price was addressed.
* Lloyd reiterated that empirical research shows **ADA price action is macro-driven**, not Treasury-driven.
* The blog accompanying the NCL proposal will include **only factual data**, avoiding financial commentary.

***

### **6. Final Committee Review of the NCL Draft**

Prior to calling the vote, members reviewed:

* corrected dates
* revised rationale
* tightened language
* treatment of unspent funds
* constitutional framing

General sentiment was positive and aligned.

Colleen confirmed the proposal was clear and sensible from an observer perspective.

***

### **7. Motion to Advance the NCL to the Board**

**Motion:** Move the **2026–27 Net Change Limit** governance action draft to the Intersect Board for approval and subsequent publication to the **GovTool Forum**.

**Raised by:** Chris Kowalski\
**Seconded by:** Megan Hess

#### **7.1 Discussion Prior to Vote**

* **Nico:** Wanted clarification on forum timing — Committee agreed the GA should enter forum **immediately upon Board approval**.
* **Chris Baird:** Expressed concern that the amount may be lower than needed; nonetheless supported moving forward while noting reservations.
* **Murasaki:** Concerned primarily about **timing and ecosystem busyness**, not the content — signaled an opposing vote but supportive of the process.
* **Committee reaffirmed** that another NCL can always be introduced later if needed.

#### **7.2 Vote**

| Member                       | Vote                    |
| ---------------------------- | ----------------------- |
| Chris Baird                  | Yes (with reservations) |
| Megan Hess                   | Yes                     |
| Mercy                        | Yes                     |
| Nico Cerny                   | Yes                     |
| Shinsuke Murasaki            | No                      |
| Christian Kowalski           | Yes                     |
| Others present (non-members) | Not voting              |

**Result:**\
**Motion PASSES** — forwarded to Board with **1 vote in opposition**.

#### **7.3 Murasaki’s Rationale (for the record)**

* Concern is **timing**, given ecosystem workload and upcoming governance cycles.

***

### **8. Closing & Next Steps**

#### **Immediate next steps:**

* Lloyd & Simo finalize:
  * updated rationale
  * exact inflow/outflow numbers
  * constitutional framing sentences
  * Board slide summarizing the proposal
* Board review expected **tomorrow**.
* Upon approval, NCL draft will be posted to **GovTool Forum** for two-week community feedback.
* Anticipated governance action target: **early January 2026** (prior to epoch 605 transition).

Lloyd thanked the committee for a highly productive session.\
Meeting adjourned with a brief post-call discussion request.