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:
Net Change Limit (NCL) — review of draft, rationale, timeline, and readiness for Board submission.
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 = (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
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.
Last updated