> 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-27th-2026-budget-comm-minutes.md). # April 27th, 2026 Budget Comm Minutes ### Budget Committee Weekly Meeting — April 27th, 2026 **Date:** April 27, 2026 **Time:** 08:59 EDT **Attendees:** Ahmed Kadiri, Christina Gianelloni (visitor), Colleen O'Beirne (Cardano Foundation — observer), Dynamic Strategies (Dimitri), Eric Helms (SCATDAO), Jose Velazquez, Kristijan (Chris) Kowalsky, Lloyd Duhon (Secretary), Megan Hess (Chair), Newman Lanier (visitor), Nicolas Cerny, Otávio Lima, Seomon (visitor — volunteer), Seun Gbiri (visitor), Simo Simovic (Project Manager), Stephen Wood (Cardano Foundation — non-voting contributor) **Apologies:** Kriss Baird (unable to attend) **Quorum:** Confirmed (after Kristijan joined). *** ### 1. Opening and Goal of the Meeting Lloyd opened the meeting and confirmed quorum. He stated the singular goal for today: **finalize and approve the Budget Committee's own budget ask for 2026** so it can be published in Ecclesia for community feedback. The committee took \~5 minutes to re-read the latest draft before discussion. Nico noted up front that nothing material had changed in the document since the last review. *** ### 2. Walking Through the Numbers — Dimitri's Review **Dimitri** worked through the budget figures and surfaced the structural question of how the workshops compare to the transparency work: | Item | ADA | | --------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------- | | Rare Evo workshop | \~100K | | Cardano Summit workshop (conditional on Summit happening) | \~120K | | LATAM workshop | \~80K (already the cheapest) | | Tooling improvements (Ecclesia) | \~200K | | Treasury Transparency Initiative (WP2) | \~120K | Lloyd's clarifications: * These figures represent **maximum spend per item**, not expected spend. * Anything not spent **returns to treasury** (e.g., if Summit doesn't get funded, the \~120K for that workshop goes back). * Workshop costs reflect **major blockchain event venues** — included is a buffer for fuel/transport price increases (\~10%), AV/room rental at union-bound venues (Caesars-style — Lloyd shared a story of being kicked out for trying to bring his own equipment two years ago). * Tooling number is grounded in **actual current vendor cost** for this year's work. * Transparency budget is intentionally constrained as a **prototype scope** — comparable to what was done for similar prototypes this year. If the prototype proves out, future cycles can scale it up. **Dimitri's concern:** Transparency work being priced about the same as one workshop feels structurally low. Either workshops are too high or transparency is too low. *** ### 3. External Visitor Challenge — Workshop Cost Optics **Christina Gianelloni** seconded Dimitri's concern from the visitor seat: * Substantial concerns about spending such large amounts on workshops. * Pushed back on Lloyd's "tier one" framing: "If ADA is 25 cents, maybe tier one is a little too much." **Jose Velazquez** added: * Agreed Singapore is expensive; Rare Evo cost is well-known and not worth re-litigating. * Real opportunity for cost reduction is on the **LATAM workshop** — talk to LATAM organizers directly. (Lloyd noted LATAM is already the lowest at 80K.) *** ### 4. Nico's Resource Capacity Analysis Nico shared a screen presentation with a **conservative resource forecast** for the committee: * Assume **10 committee members** × **2–3 hours/week** = \~20–30 hours/week * \~52 weeks/year = **\~1,300–1,500 total committee hours/year** * Allocating **50–60%** of capacity to this proposal = **\~650–780 hours** Nico's framing: * **Mutual accountability needs to be created.** The proposal should assign **owners and leads** for each work package and milestone before submission. * Without that, the work falls on (a) the secretary or (b) "those committee members kind enough to care" — neither is sustainable. * Membership is in flux due to elections, which makes naming people now difficult — but the proposal should still make the delivery model explicit. **Lloyd's response:** WP1 (workshops + budget process work) genuinely is part of the secretary's job — he's prepared to own that. WP2 (transparency prototype) needs clear committee ownership; Dimitri, Megan, and others have shown interest. Election uncertainty is the reason individual names aren't in the document yet. *** ### 5. First Motion — Publish As-Is (No Second) **Megan** raised a motion: **publish this draft as-is**, given that the proposal can be edited until mid-May during the feedback window. * **Mover:** Megan Hess * **Second:** None offered **Result:** Motion died for lack of a second. **Kristijan** explained the room's reluctance: proposals are under heavy scrutiny, the committee is already a target, and "DReps are not going to be soft on us." Better to wait 5–6 days and put out something polished than ship something gappy. *** ### 6. Dimitri's Three-Point Reframing Recommendations Once it became clear the document needed more work before a publish vote could pass, Dimitri offered concrete reframing recommendations: 1. **Make it explicit and bold up front** that this is a **separate request from the Intersect main budget** (and that members are not paid out of it — money goes to external services and intersect staff outside committee time). 2. **Reorder the work packages:** lead with **Treasury Transparency** (WP2), since that's the work the community most wants to see and will read first. Demote workshops to follow. 3. **Reduce the workshop ask up front and frame it as conditional**, so it doesn't read as "half the treasury budget is going to workshops." Lloyd accepted #2 as an easy reorder; flagged #3 as harder because the figures reflect actual venue costs at major events — there isn't slack to cut without abandoning the workshop format. *** ### 7. Stephen Wood — Single Number / Granularity Principle **Stephen Wood** offered structural advice from the Cardano Foundation's experience: * An organization should give its board **one number** for its full ask, not parsed into multiple sub-budgets. * Then provide **drill-down granularity** — the Cardano Foundation publishes financial statements down to the transaction level — but the headline is one number. * Start at the high level, then go granular. That gives reviewers actionable data fastest. This raised a question that needs senior-leadership clarification: why is this committee submitting a separate budget at all rather than rolling into a single Intersect ask? **Simo's clarification (important):** The Budget Committee's ask is **NOT part of the Intersect core budget**. The executive team and board have approved the committee submitting it separately, but it is not folded into the Intersect main proposal. If this proposal does not pass, **there will be no funding for this work** — Intersect will continue as administrator but will not run a 2027 budget process improvement effort or build the transparency prototype. The committee also doesn't have to submit at all — submitting a budget is the committee's choice. *** ### 8. Nico's Temperature-Check Motion — Should the Committee Have a Budget? Given the depth of structural questions, Nico raised a temperature-check motion to confirm the committee even wants to pursue a budget at all in this cycle. * **Motion:** Should the Budget Committee submit a budget request via the 2026 budget process? * **Mover:** Nicolas Cerny * **Second:** Dynamic Strategies (Dimitri) **Discussion:** * **Nico:** Everyone agrees the work in the document is important. The question is whether **it should be the committee or purely Intersect staff**. Worth taking a step back and asking honestly. * **Dimitri:** Committee members realistically have 1–3 hours/week for the 500 ADA stipend. Anything substantive will be done by Intersect-paid staff outside committee time or by external vendors. The proposal must make that crystal clear — money requested is not paying members. * **Dimitri:** Submitting a budget demonstrates the committee is doing work and wants to continue. But framing must be careful given ADA price sensitivity. He'd lead with the transparency work package and reduce workshop ask up front. * **Eric** asked: would a no vote mean the committee disbands? **Lloyd:** No — committee continues either way; a no vote just means no funding for workshops, tooling improvements, or the transparency prototype this cycle. #### Roll Call Vote — Should the Committee Pursue a Budget? | Member | Vote | | ---------------------------- | ------ | | Otávio Lima | Yes | | Nicolas Cerny | Yes | | Jose Velazquez | Yes | | Eric Helms (SCATDAO) | Yes | | Dynamic Strategies (Dimitri) | **No** | | Megan Hess | Yes | **Result:** **5 Yes, 1 No** — committee will continue to refine and submit a budget ask for 2026. *** ### 9. Christina's Catch — Missing Line Item While reviewing the document during the meeting, **Christina** flagged a gap on page 19 (work package one budget breakdown): * Only the three workshop costs (Rare Evo, Summit, LATAM) appear; **no cost line for the actual tooling development** — the work that follows the PRD. * **Lloyd:** This is wrong. There was a **\~$50K USD line for tooling improvement (milestone 7)** that has been **lost from the working document** — likely an accidental deletion. **Action:** Restore the missing $50K USD line for the tooling improvement milestone before the next vote. *** ### 10. Christina — Ecclesia as External Vendor Proposal Christina also suggested: the **Ecclesia platform improvement work** is really an external paid product, not Budget Committee delivery — it could be cleaner for the Ecclesia team to **submit their own proposal** rather than bundling those costs into the committee's ask. (Logged for committee consideration; not resolved in-meeting.) *** ### 11. Volunteer Offer — Seomon A visitor (Seomon) volunteered during the meeting to read the proposal and contribute work toward it. Lloyd accepted: anyone can propose language; the committee chooses what to accept. Lloyd will share the document with Seomon for review and proposed contributions. *** ### 12. Path Forward The committee aligned on continuing to refine the document this week, with: * Wednesday's working session as the next vote opportunity (if quorum holds) * Failing that, Monday May 4 as the fallback vote date * Continued individual edits during the week Megan flagged that Wednesday quorum is historically harder to achieve, so all members are encouraged to attend. *** ### 13. Action Items | Action | Owner | Notes | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------- | ---------------------------------------------- | | Restore missing \~$50K USD line for tooling improvement (milestone 7) | Lloyd | Accidental deletion caught by Christina | | Reorder work packages: lead with **Treasury Transparency** (WP2), workshops follow | Lloyd | Per Dimitri's recommendation | | Add explicit, bold framing up front: this proposal is **separate from Intersect main budget**; member stipends are not paid from it | Lloyd / committee | Per Dimitri | | Add owners / leads for work packages and milestones (or explicit language about how delivery works) | Lloyd / committee | Per Nico's accountability point | | Reinforce return-to-treasury language clearly (e.g., conditional workshops, unspent funds) | Lloyd | Already in document; make more visible | | Consider whether Ecclesia platform improvement should move to a separate Ecclesia-team proposal | Committee | Per Christina; for discussion Wednesday | | Explore further cost reduction on LATAM workshop with regional organizers | Jose / Lloyd | Already lowest at 80K but room to push further | | Consider higher-level / lower-level number presentation (one headline figure with drill-down) | Lloyd | Per Stephen's framing | | Share document with Seomon for volunteer review and proposed language | Lloyd | Volunteer offer accepted | | Continue refinement; bring back for vote on Wednesday (if quorum) or Monday May 4 | All | Path to publication | *** ### 14. Adjournment Lloyd thanked the committee for substantive discussion that surfaced concrete improvements to the document. The committee is **continuing to develop the budget ask** (5–1 vote on the temperature check) and will reconvene Wednesday for a working session and possible publish vote. **Headline outcomes:** * **Temperature-check vote: 5 Yes, 1 No** — committee will continue to develop and submit a budget ask for 2026. * **Publish-as-is motion failed** for lack of a second — document needs more refinement before going to DReps. * **Reordering decided:** lead with Treasury Transparency, workshops follow. * **Missing $50K USD tooling line item** to be restored (Christina's catch). * **Framing required:** explicit, bold-up-front language that this is **separate from Intersect main budget** and that committee members are not paid from it. * **Owners / leads** for each work package and milestone needed before publication (Nico's accountability point). * **Stephen Wood's principle logged:** one headline number plus drill-down granularity. * **Simo confirmed** the committee budget is not part of Intersect core; this work is conditional on this proposal passing. * **Path:** Wednesday working session → vote there if quorum, otherwise Monday May 4. Meeting adjourned at **01:00:21**. --- # 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-27th-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.