> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://committees.docs.intersectmbo.org/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://committees.docs.intersectmbo.org/intersect-budget-committee/committee-meeting-notes/2026-meeting-notes/budget-committee-weekly-meetings/april-13-2026-budget-comm-minutes.md). # April 13, 2026 Budget Comm Minutes ### Budget Committee Weekly Meeting — April 13th, 2026 **Date:** April 13, 2026 **Time:** 08:58 EDT **Attendees:** Christina Gianelloni (visitor), Dynamic Strategies (Dimitri), Eric Helms (SCATDAO), Jose Velazquez, Kriss Baird, Lloyd Duhon (Secretary), Mark Bùi (visitor), Megan Hess (Chair), Nicolas Cerny, Otávio Lima, Stephen Wood (Cardano Foundation — non-voting contributor) **Absent:** Simo Simovic (Project Manager — expected back Tuesday) **Quorum:** Confirmed. > **Note:** No meeting was held the prior week (Easter Monday). *** ### 1. Opening and Document Update Lloyd opened the meeting and confirmed quorum. He provided a status update on the Committee Budget Ask document: * **Work Package 1 milestones** have been added. * A **narrative paragraph** has been written explaining why the Budget Committee should be the body delivering this work (the "why us" justification). * The document is open for committee review and refinement today. Lloyd flagged a possible visitor — **Nick Cook** — who was hoping to drop in to brief the committee on the **Intersect administration fee** approval received from the board. Nick did not attend, so Lloyd thumbnailed the topic later in the meeting (see Section 4). *** ### 2. Key Addition Required — Contingency Language **Nico** raised an important framing point: the committee budget proposal is **contingent on the Intersect main budget proposal passing**. If the committee's proposal is funded but Intersect's main budget is not, the committee likely cannot deliver the work. **Kriss Baird** agreed and committed to adding language directly into the executive summary: * Explicit reference to **CBC** within the first line. * A **footnote** capturing Nico's contingency point. **Direction:** This contingency language must be in the document before release. *** ### 3. Quiet Working Time At Kriss's suggestion, the committee took \~15 minutes to read the document in silence and surface questions in real time. Mark Bùi joined the gallery during this period; Christina Gianelloni joined shortly after. Substantive discussion resumed once members began surfacing questions. *** ### 4. Intersect Administration Fee — Lloyd's Briefing In Nick Cook's absence, Lloyd briefed the committee on what he understands about Intersect's plan to fund the administrator function via a fee for service: * The **board has approved** Intersect to proceed with charging an administration fee. * Current understanding is the fee will be **3%** of the proposal amount for vendors who select Intersect as their administrator. * This funds Intersect's ongoing work as administrator (smart contract setup, milestone management, payments, contracts) **and** the constitutionally required independent audits of that administrator function. * **Committee proposals are not expected to pay the 3% fee** — committee work falls under Intersect business-as-usual, where Intersect is responsible for keeping committees running. * This does not change the committee's own budget ask; it is an adjacent operational matter. * More definitive information was expected from Nick today; the committee will get clearer briefing once available. *** ### 5. Independent Audits — Scope and Mechanics A substantial portion of the meeting clarified the scope of "independent audits" in the proposal, which several members were reading differently. #### 5.1 Constitutional Requirement **Nico** read from the Constitution (paraphrased from memory, then quoted): > "Treasury withdrawal actions shall require an allocation of ADA as part of such funding request to cover the cost of periodic independent audits and the implementation of oversight metrics as to the use of such ADA." Two treasury withdrawals are expected from this process — one for the 67–75% approval band and one for ≥75%. Each withdrawal must allocate funding for these audits. The Constitution does **not** define what an "independent audit" entails. #### 5.2 What Is Being Audited (Scope Clarification) **Lloyd** clarified the intent: * The audit covers **what Intersect did as administrator** — from the moment funds leave the treasury into Intersect's smart contracts, through either delivery of the finished proposal or return of unused funds to treasury. * Scope: did Intersect follow its own processes? Were milestones filed? Did money go where it was supposed to go? * Scope **does not** cover whether the proposing teams (e.g., Midgard, MIT, eternal) delivered on their technical work. That would be a separate technical audit/review, which is up to the funded teams to commission and is outside the Constitution's audit requirement. #### 5.3 Audit Cycle Lloyd outlined the rolling audit cycle: * **2025 audit** is being kicked off now — covering 2025 projects up to a cutoff date. * **2026 audit** (to be published mid-2027) will pick up any remaining 2025 work plus 2026 work. * Annual cadence going forward. #### 5.4 Audit Deliverable Reality **Stephen Wood** noted that, in his experience, third-party auditors typically do not enumerate what was done correctly or even what was done wrong — they often issue a "we found nothing" letter. The committee acknowledged this and agreed the goal is to engage an auditor who will genuinely review books and processes. #### 5.5 Christina's Clarifying Question — Who Pays? **Christina** asked whether each proposal must set aside its own audit funding (e.g., did Eternal pay for their own audit out of their treasury withdrawal?). * **Lloyd:** No. For 2025 projects that used Intersect as administrator, the audit of Intersect's administration of those funds is what Intersect is conducting now. The 3% admin fee going forward will cover this for Intersect proposals. * The **proposer is not separately audited** as part of the constitutional requirement; the proposer's deliverable quality is a separate question they should consider for their own credibility, but it is not in scope for the constitutional audit. #### 5.6 Nico's Word-Choice Caution **Nico** emphasized: "Words matter." The committee should use the term **"audit"** narrowly — referring only to the audit of Intersect's administrator activity (smart contract setup, payments initiated, process adherence). Audits of proposers' actual work are a different review process entirely. The committee should be careful not to conflate these in the document. #### 5.7 Possible Duplication Check Lloyd noted that some line items in the committee budget were drafted to flag items Intersect needs to fund. Once Intersect's main proposal is finalized, those items will be **pulled out of the committee request** to avoid duplication. *** ### 6. Outstanding Item — Budget Numbers **Dimitri** noted the budget document currently has **no dollar/ADA figures**. * **Lloyd:** Numbers are with Intersect staff, who are wrapping them up. Lloyd does not have planning numbers in hand — needs Simo back to get them. * **Nico** requested at minimum **back-of-envelope rough numbers for Wednesday's working session**. * **Lloyd:** Will endeavor to get rough numbers for Wednesday. Simo expected back Tuesday. *** ### 7. Realistic Timeline — Friday Release Likely Not Achievable **Kriss Baird** delivered an honest assessment of where the document stands: * Significant gaps remain in justification and rationale. * "You don't write a significant proposal and get it done in a week — it's not going to be good enough." * The **Friday release target is not realistic**; the committee should accept this and aim for a properly developed document. **Lloyd** acknowledged and agreed: * His earlier deadline pressure was tactical (people often take available time fully). But the work is real. * Members are asked to spend time on the document this week; Lloyd is **available for individual meetings all week** if any member wants to work through specifics 1:1. * **Wednesday working session** will reconvene the committee for collaborative refinement. *** ### 8. Possible Scope Reduction — Work Package 2 **Nico** raised a scope question worth holding open: * **Work Package 2 (Treasury Transparency and Analytics)** may not properly belong under the Budget Committee — it could more naturally sit with the main administrator (Intersect). * The committee should wait to see Intersect's main proposal before locking in WP2 scope, and may need to reduce the committee's own scope accordingly. * Lloyd: The committee doesn't yet have a full RACI because the full Intersect proposal isn't visible yet. The committee will stake claim on what is clearly committee work and revisit overlaps once Intersect's proposal lands. * Nico noted he saw a version in the ISC, but that's the extent of his visibility. *** ### 9. Committee Elections Update #### 9.1 Applicant Standing (Per Christina) Christina shared the latest from X / public discussion: * **5 open Budget Committee seats** with **5 applicants** as of the prior evening — meaning all five applicants would seat by default if no further applications come in. * **Shaggy** is among the applicants. Christina flagged him as a controversial figure who has been publicly critical of Lloyd and the budget process; she has tried mediating without success. * One applicant has a financial background (positive signal) but is also applying to multiple committees, raising bandwidth concerns. * **Megan** plans to reapply (positive). * **Christina** confirmed she will **not** apply herself due to perceived conflict of interest with her Pragma role; she will continue participating as a community contributor. * **Friday is the deadline** for applications. #### 9.2 Voting Mechanics — Dimitri's Question **Dimitri** asked who actually elects committee members. * **Nico** clarified: **Paying Intersect members** vote in committee elections. * **Lloyd:** Reinforced — all Intersect members should vote and have their voice heard on committee composition. #### 9.3 Nico's Process Suggestion (For the Record) **Nico** noted for the record that he would prefer **rank-choice voting** in Intersect Committee elections, as he believes it would produce better outcomes. Not actionable for this election cycle, but logged. *** ### 10. Censure / Removal Process — Kriss's Question **Kriss** asked (as a takeaway, not for resolution today): What powers exist to deal with elected members who prove problematic from the start? **Lloyd** (who originally drafted the process): * The process is based on **Robert's Rules of Order**. * **Censure** is available as a step short of removal — a member can be censured for improper conduct without being removed. * **Removal** is a separate, second step if needed. * The Budget Committee was the first committee to perform a censure. Both steps remain available. **Kriss** indicated this was a takeaway question and appreciated the answer; flagging for future reference if it becomes relevant after elections. *** ### 11. Christina's Treasury Assess Update (Briefing) Christina briefly noted that her team's **Treasury Assess** proposal reviews are getting underway: * The review framing is **constructive** — not "this team is terrible," but "did we get the information needed, and if not, is there a path to help proposers provide more?" * Goal is to help DReps and proposers alike. * She invited the committee to engage with her or her small team on what they're seeing. *** ### 12. Homework Before Wednesday's Working Session * **All members:** Read the Committee Budget Ask document; close gaps in justification and rationale; surface questions and edits. * **Kriss:** Add CBC reference and Intersect-budget contingency footnote to executive summary. * **Lloyd:** Pull rough budget numbers from staff (or Simo on his return Tuesday) for Wednesday. * **Nico / committee:** Hold a watching brief on Work Package 2 scope pending visibility into Intersect's main proposal. * **All Intersect members:** Vote in the Committee elections. *** ### 13. Action Items | Action | Owner | Notes | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- | | Add CBC reference (first line of executive summary) and contingency footnote re: Intersect main budget passing | Kriss Baird | Per Nico's framing point | | Tighten "audit" language so it refers narrowly to audit of Intersect's administrator activity (not proposer deliverables) | Lloyd / committee editors | Per Nico's word-choice caution | | Remove or flag any line items that overlap with what Intersect will fund as part of main proposal | Lloyd / Simo | Final reconciliation pending Intersect proposal visibility | | Obtain back-of-envelope budget numbers for Wednesday's session | Lloyd / Simo | Simo expected back Tuesday | | Review Work Package 2 (Treasury Transparency / Analytics) scope; decide whether it belongs with the committee or with Intersect as administrator | Nico / committee | Hold open pending Intersect main proposal | | Refine Work Package 1 milestones (1 in-person session — likely Rare Evo — plus 2 virtual sessions, plus direct DRep/vendor outreach) | Lloyd / committee | Already drafted; refinement welcome | | Close gaps in justification and rationale across the document | All committee members | Individual work this week | | Hold Wednesday working session to refine document collaboratively | All members | Standing meeting | | Make Lloyd available for 1:1 meetings with members during the week | Lloyd | On request | | Vote in Intersect Committee elections | All Intersect members | Application deadline Friday | | Log rank-choice voting suggestion for future Intersect Committee elections | Nico (logged) | Not actionable this cycle | | Continue Treasury Assess proposal reviews; share findings with committee where helpful | Christina Gianelloni / team | Constructive framing — help proposers improve | *** ### 14. Adjournment Lloyd thanked the committee, accepted Kriss's reality check on the Friday release target, and gave members 10 minutes back ahead of the Intersect Steering Committee call. **Headline outcomes:** * **Friday release target acknowledged as not realistic**; document needs more substantive work before release. * **Audit scope clarified** — narrowly refers to Intersect's administration of treasury funds; does not extend to proposer deliverable quality. Document language to be tightened accordingly. * **Contingency language to be added** — committee budget proposal explicitly contingent on Intersect main budget passing. * **3% Intersect administration fee** confirmed (per Lloyd's secondhand briefing); covers admin work and constitutional audit; does not apply to committee proposals. * **Work Package 2 scope** held open pending visibility into Intersect's main proposal. * **Budget numbers** still outstanding; rough figures targeted for Wednesday. * **Elections:** 5 open seats / 5 applicants as of yesterday; Friday application deadline; Megan reapplying; Christina opting out due to Pragma conflict. Meeting adjourned at **00:54:33**. --- # Agent Instructions This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com. ## Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter, and the optional `goal` query parameter: ``` GET https://committees.docs.intersectmbo.org/intersect-budget-committee/committee-meeting-notes/2026-meeting-notes/budget-committee-weekly-meetings/april-13-2026-budget-comm-minutes.md?ask=&goal= ``` `ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. `goal` is optional and describes the broader end goal you are ultimately trying to accomplish on behalf of the user. GitBook uses it to tailor the answer towards what is most useful for that goal. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.