February 16th, 2026 Budget Comm Minutes
Budget Committee Weekly Meeting — February 16th, 2026
Date: February 16, 2026 Time: 07:55 EST
Attendees:
Colleen O'Beirne, Georgia Hutton, Jack Briggs, Kriss Baird, Kristijan (Chris) Kowalsky, Lloyd Duhon, Lorenzo Bruno, Stephen Wood
Quorum: Confirmed (partial committee present; Simo Simovic noted as traveling; Eric Helms traveling; recording for members unable to attend).
1. Opening and Agenda
Lloyd opened the meeting and outlined the agenda:
Administrative updates on board presentation and process feedback
Development updates from Lorenzo Bruno (Matt Orchestra team) on form implementation and refinement
Feedback review and committee input on proposed changes to the budget proposal template
Lloyd noted that several members are traveling or unavailable. The meeting is intended as an update session that will be recorded for those unable to attend. No major decisions were expected but substantive feedback on development work is needed.
2. Administrative and Board Updates
2.1 Board Presentation and Feedback
Jack Briggs reported the Budget Process Info Action was presented to the board last week.
Board feedback was positive overall; the board commended the budget committee and the decision to use an info action.
Feedback included some clarification points, most related to language misunderstandings — valuable for improving communications.
2.2 Next Steps for Board Engagement
Next board meeting is scheduled for next week.
Jack requested budget committee members present directly to the board for a 10-15 minute slot on the process.
Lloyd to coordinate timing with committee members.
3. Development Update — Form Implementation and Refinement
3.1 Overview and Testing Status
Lorenzo Bruno provided updates on implementation work by Matt Orchestra team.
The team is refining the form based on testing and user feedback.
Form is long but necessarily so; proposers understand this is a comprehensive submission.
3.2 Strategy Framework Alignment — Pillar vs. KPI Structure
Problem Identified:
Original template required filtering/sorting by focus areas and KPIs, then also solicited additional suggestions for both.
This creates a conflict: if the fields are used for sorting/filtering, they must be fixed; but if additional suggestions are welcome, the list cannot be treated as definitive.
Recommendation by Development Team:
Use pillars (five fixed options, stable for 8+ months, previously approved) as the primary filtering/sorting field.
Make KPIs and focus areas open fields where proposers can suggest additional ones.
Preserves the structured comparison DReps need while capturing broader ecosystem input.
Committee Discussion:
Lloyd and Jack emphasized the significant work the committee invested in identifying the original KPIs through DRep engagement and delivery assurance input.
Kriss Baird raised concern about KPI subjectivity: proposals with higher quantitative KPI targets may incorrectly appear superior, but KPIs at proposal stage are estimates, not guarantees.
Jack Briggs countered that numbers are necessary for accountability and to keep vendors focused on delivery.
Lorenzo clarified that KPIs exist at two levels: Cardano ecosystem KPIs (supporting pillars) and project-specific KPIs (within work packages for tracking). The recommendation separates these roles.
Resolution:
Committee agreed that pillars should remain as the primary category for filtering.
KPIs should be restructured to include a number/metric while positioned as supporting information rather than the primary decision criterion.
Lorenzo to add structural elements enabling proposers to include quantitative targets alongside explanatory text.
3.3 Milestones — Mandatory vs. Optional
Issue:
Original decision was to add milestones back to the form; question arose whether they should be mandatory or optional.
Some proposal types (e.g., market-making deals with uncertain valuations) are difficult to structure with traditional milestones.
Committee Input:
Georgia Hutton (Delivery Assurance) emphasized milestones are essential for earned value contracts; without them, funding is either given upfront or entirely at the end.
Exception: unique cases like market-making deals protected by NDA due to market manipulation risk.
Those situations are handled case-by-case in other budget rounds (e.g., critical integrations).
Kristijan Kowalsky stressed milestones are required for smart contracts and payment triggering; all proposals should be able to accommodate them.
Lloyd suggested offering a "milestone zero" option: either an upfront payment to kick off work, or final-milestone-only arrangements.
Recommendation:
Milestones should be strongly recommended, not mandatory.
A field should allow proposers to explain why they cannot fit milestones, addressing edge cases without forcing incompatible structures onto all proposals.
3.4 Objectives vs. Scope — Consolidation Opportunity
Kriss Baird identified duplication between "scope of work package" and "objectives."
Lorenzo acknowledged the overlap; objectives are sometimes redundant with scope.
Recommendation: merge these fields into a single "Scope and Objectives" field.
Committee agreed this simplifies the form without loss of information.
3.5 Milestone Duration Timing
Issue:
Form previously asked for duration of individual milestones (in months).
Form also asks for overall project duration.
Questions raised whether milestone duration adds value for DReps or is primarily an administration concern.
Discussion:
Jack Briggs noted administration must track milestones for contracting; three months to process contracts for ~30 proposals was burdensome.
Kriss Baird raised concern about duplication: if overall project duration is captured, milestone timing should not be separate.
Additionally, asking proposers to estimate milestone durations upfront invites human error (e.g., overlapping milestone dates).
Jack acknowledged that milestones almost always change during contracting anyway.
Georgia Hutton noted administration needs some timeline thinking upfront, but acknowledged DReps may not need granular detail per milestone.
Recommendation:
Consider removing individual milestone duration from proposal submission stage.
Keep overall project duration; this captures timeline planning for DReps.
Milestone timing details can be fleshed out during contracting.
Lorenzo to discuss with Georgia and Jack for final confirmation.
3.6 Milestone Duration Validation
Kriss Baird asked whether the tool will enforce chronological consistency (i.e., milestone 2 cannot start before milestone 1 ends).
Lorenzo indicated the tool should not allow overlapping dates and could enforce a minimum duration (e.g., three months minimum per milestone).
Lorenzo recommended adding validation to prevent proposers from making administrative errors.
Kriss emphasized the importance of removing complexity to avoid tripping up proposers.
3.7 Intersect Administration and GDPR
Lorenzo noted changes to the administration section.
New approach: first ask "Do you want Intersect to administer this proposal?"
If yes, follow-up questions on legal and operational details.
If no, skip those questions (helps comply with GDPR by not collecting unnecessary personal data).
3.8 Exchange Rate Consistency
Issue:
User feedback from prior year: proposers used different exchange rates when converting ADA to USD, creating confusion.
Development Suggestion:
Offer 3–5 fixed exchange rate options (e.g., 6-month moving average, 12-month moving average) rather than unlimited self-selection.
Committee Decision:
Strong pushback from Kriss Baird: any optionality fragments evaluators' mental models and makes cross-proposal comparison harder.
Recommendation: Intersect provides a single, well-justified exchange rate (e.g., 12-month moving average).
Lloyd agreed: 12-month moving average is defensible and can be calculated systematically.
Decision: Use 12-month moving average as the official rate; provide to proposers upfront.
4. Timeline and Next Steps
4.1 Development Momentum
Lorenzo indicated the first implementation prototype from Matt Orchestra and Adam Dean teams is expected this week.
Feedback needed as soon as possible for rapid iteration.
4.2 Wednesday Working Session
Kristijan noted the committee is meeting again on Wednesday.
Lorenzo requested feedback by end of week so the dev team can adjust.
Jack will bring updates on board feedback and questions around the Net Change Limit (NCL), change limit constitutionality, and priority-setting mechanisms for proposals.
4.3 On-Chain Submission Timeline
Kristijan asked whether the Budget Process Info Action can go on-chain next Monday or will be delayed.
Jack reported he is following up with the board this week on feedback from last week's presentation, hoping for async approval to move forward next week.
Board call is scheduled for next week and the budget committee is invited to present.
Jack acknowledged concerns about ADA price and treasury drain but emphasized the need to move forward with projects and building.
5. Action Items
Calculate and provide 12-month moving average exchange rate
Lloyd
For ADA-USD conversion; to be used as single official rate
Confirm final milestone duration requirements with team
Lorenzo / Georgia / Jack
Clarify whether individual milestone duration stays in proposal submission
Consolidate objectives and scope fields
Lorenzo
Merge into single "Scope and Objectives" field
Gather dev team feedback and iterate on form
Lorenzo / Matt Orchestra / Adam Dean
First implementation expected this week; feedback needed by end of week
Follow up with board on feedback and proceed with on-chain submission
Jack
Async approval target for next week submission
Prepare board presentation with committee members
Lloyd / Jack
10-15 minute slot next week
Discuss board feedback on NCL, change limit, and priority mechanisms
Jack / Committee
Wednesday working session
Strongly recommend milestones with explanatory field for exceptions
Lorenzo / Dev Team
Update form guidance and validation
6. Adjournment
Lloyd thanked the committee for their time and participation. Meeting ran over time at approximately one hour and three minutes, with the team picking up outstanding items in the Wednesday working session.
Next steps:
Wednesday working session to review development progress and provide feedback on form prototype.
Board presentation next week (Jack to coordinate timing).
Continue refinement of Budget Process Info Action for on-chain submission.
Meeting adjourned at 01:03:05.
Last updated