February 23rd, 2026 Budget Comm Minutes
Budget Committee Weekly Meeting — February 23rd, 2026
Date: February 23, 2026 Time: 07:54 EST
Attendees:
Abbie Yeates, Abhik Nag, Ahmed Kadiri, Christina Gianelloni, Colleen O'Beirne, Dynamic Strategies (Demetri), Eric Helms (SCATDAO), Ian Njuguna, Iano, Kriss Baird, Kristijan Kowalsky, Lloyd Duhon (Secretary), Maureen Wepngong, Megan Hess (Chair), Otávio Lima, Pedro Lucas, Simo Simovic (Project Manager), Stephen Wood, Tevo Kask, Thomas Lindseth, Wilco van de Burgwal
Quorum: Confirmed.
1. Opening and Agenda
Lloyd opened the meeting and welcomed all participants. The primary objectives for the meeting were:
Review and discuss updates on the Budget Process Info Action (BPIA) ahead of board presentation on Wednesday.
Preview the budget tool developed by the Ecclesia team.
Discuss budget committee staffing for 2026, including seat allocation and selection criteria.
Begin planning the 2026 budget committee budget to identify funding priorities and resource requirements.
2. Tool Development and Implementation Update
2.1 Current Status
Simo reported that the Ecclesia team has developed a preprod environment for the budget tool.
The tool has been recently updated with new features and functionality.
A working demo is expected within approximately one week.
2.2 Budget Tool Preview
Simo walked the committee through the current state of the budget tool UI, demonstrating:
Project Definition Section: Title, executive summary, and track record fields.
Strategic Pillar Selection: Proposals now select strategic pillars (rather than focus areas), with explanatory text to be added to clarify alignment expectations.
KPI Alignment: Vendors can indicate which framework KPIs their proposal relates to or define additional KPIs.
Execution Roadmap: Date selection and work package creation.
Work Package Details: Scope of work, duration, objectives, expected value metrics, and support documentation links.
Budget Breakdown: Line-item cost entry by category (e.g., resources, operations) with automatic rollup and per-work-package cost visibility.
Proposal Management: Draft saving, editing, withdrawal capability (with reason documentation), and deletion (pre-submission only).
Administrative Verification: Administrator selection (Intersect or alternative), applicant type (company/individual), and treasury hash verification.
2.3 Key Technical Considerations
Kristijan Kowalsky noted that the current UI mockup is AI-generated and not yet a fully functional program.
The tool's display of supporting documentation needs adjustment — it should appear high in the output (near the top), not at the bottom.
A disclaimer will precede proposal creation to inform vendors of the 1,000 ADA participation fee and wallet verification requirements.
2.4 Outstanding Technical Items
Ecclesia team (Adam Dean and Matt) agreed to finalize templates and continue development over the next 9-10 days to complete the application.
Display logic for supporting documentation requires adjustment.
Preview functionality is not yet functional and needs development.
3. ADA/USD Exchange Rate Discussion
3.1 Initial Proposal and Concerns
Simo presented the tool with a user-defined ADA/USD exchange rate field, allowing vendors to enter their own conversion rate.
Concern: Kriss Baird raised that allowing proposal-defined rates creates "cognitive dissonance" for DReps, resulting in non-comparable proposals. Different vendors could use rates ranging from $0.08 to $0.40, making it difficult to assess value for money.
3.2 Prior Discussions and Disagreements
Lloyd indicated that the committee had previously discussed using a fixed three-month (90-day) rolling average exchange rate, but Simo noted that Kristijan Kowalsky and others opposed this approach in prior discussions.
Concern: A fixed, artificially low rate could incentivize vendors to inflate costs to compensate.
A fixed, artificially high rate could shift blame to the committee if prices subsequently decline.
3.3 Practical Perspective from Guest Speaker
Christina Gianelloni (Pragma) contributed valuable insight: She highlighted that Amaru's draft 2026 proposal includes a contingency plan for ADA price fluctuations, demonstrating that vendors are already considering this risk.
This suggests vendors may have practical solutions that the committee should review and potentially incorporate as guidance or optional language.
3.4 Committee Resolution
Lloyd's proposal: Rather than a fixed exchange rate or vendor-defined rate, the form should focus on "what-if" planning, with vendors stating what they would do if ADA price rises above or falls below certain thresholds.
The ADA/USD conversion field can remain as an optional tool for vendors to perform their own calculations, but the emphasis should shift to budget management contingencies.
The field is a simple text addition to the template and minimal lift for the development team.
Consensus: Committee agreed to refocus the discussion on contingency planning rather than exchange rate specification.
3.5 Support Documentation Positioning
Lloyd noted that supporting documentation placement in the intake form is less critical, but it must appear prominently in the final output (not scrolled past).
Simo acknowledged this adjustment is needed.
4. Budget Process Info Action (BPIA) — Review and Changes
4.1 Changes for Board Presentation
Simo presented three key changes to the BPIA document ahead of Wednesday's board discussion:
Pillar-Focused Language: The opening section needed rewriting to reflect the shift from "focus areas" to "strategic pillars" to align with the tool implementation.
Ranking Methodology: The board explicitly asked how proposals are ranked and decided upon. Simo added explanation that:
If there is insufficient NCL funding to approve all qualified proposals (those meeting the ≥67% approval threshold in Stage 2), proposals are ranked by Church (Ecclesia voting outcome) to determine which pass.
This process ensures transparency and prevents the appearance that Intersect is gatekeeping or unilaterally selecting projects.
The methodology is familiar from Project Catalyst.
Oversight Committee Language: Text explaining the role of the oversight committee (from the smart contract design by Matt Davis) was retained as it appropriately documents the governance model.
4.2 Committee Feedback on Changes
Lloyd: Confirmed the three changes are appropriate and that the pillar language can be finalized relatively quickly.
No objections were raised to the board-facing language.
4.3 Outstanding BPIA Refinements
Templates and UI mockups have been shared with the Ecclesia dev team.
Simo will finalize template language this week so developers can continue frontend and backend implementation.
Committee members are encouraged to provide feedback by Wednesday working session.
5. Committee Staffing and Elections for 2026
5.1 Seat Allocation
The committee is transitioning to two-year term cycles for all members.
Elections occur annually, with approximately half the committee up for election each year.
Five seats are expiring in April 2026 (including Rita Mistry).
The committee should aim to elect five new or re-elected members to maintain the 5-5 balance.
5.2 Current Members' Status
Current members whose terms are shifting should be contacted to confirm acceptance of the new April expiration date.
Simo will reach out to affected members to confirm their willingness to continue.
5.3 Alternates and Mid-Term Appointments
Lloyd proposed inviting runners-up (candidates who placed sixth or seventh in elections) to attend meetings as alternates, even if not yet voting members.
If a sitting member steps down mid-term, alternates would be ready to assume the seat without requiring a special election.
Committee consensus: This is a flexible, practical approach that increases knowledge-sharing and preparedness.
5.4 Job Description and Screening Questions
Simo reviewed the Budget Committee Job Description and Selection Questions (unchanged from the previous election cycle):
Committee Purpose: The Cardano Budget Committee is an advisory committee bringing together relevant stakeholders to provide guidance, support, and oversight for Cardano's annual budget process. Members rely on their knowledge and observations to evaluate financial risks and find solutions.
Why Join:
Work with stakeholders on financial evaluation and problem-solving
Refine understanding of financial principles, reporting, and analysis
Learn to explain financial concepts to diverse audiences
Participate in budget planning, reviews, and approvals
Monitor financial performance and recommend adjustments
Identify cost-savings and revenue opportunities
Recommended Skills and Background:
Experience with budgeting processes, financial planning, or fiscal oversight
Foundational understanding of blockchain technology (Cardano preferred)
Strong ethical standards and commitment to financial transparency
Ability to interpret financial data and make informed recommendations
Screening Questions:
Describe a past experience illustrating your understanding of financial principles and budget management, including how you monitored performance and made necessary adjustments.
How have you previously aligned budget priorities with an organization's broader goals? What methods did you use to ensure accuracy and transparency in financial records and projections?
What is your approach to collaborating with various stakeholders (finance teams, department heads) to identify cost-saving opportunities, manage financial risks, and maintain accountability?
Committee consensus: The job description and screening questions remain relevant and well-suited for identifying strong candidates.
6. 2026 Budget Committee Budget — Planning and Priorities
6.1 Context and Scope
Lloyd explained the budget planning process:
Each Intersect committee is asked to present a budget proposal to the ISC board for the work required to support that committee's objectives.
The board has not imposed strict limitations beyond discouraging formal grant programs.
The focus should be on identifying what needs to be funded to make the committee a better value to Cardano.
6.2 Potential Budget Items (Discussion)
Ecclesia Tool Development:
The tool is currently funded by Intersect but is an open-source resource available to the ecosystem.
The committee could either continue with Intersect funding or request budget to fund tool development directly, with the same net effect.
This decision should clarify the long-term funding model.
Workshops and Community Feedback:
Simo proposed regional "pizza party" workshops with modest funding (~$500 per region) to gather community feedback on process improvements.
This would avoid expensive travel budgets but enable local community engagement.
Workshops would serve as feedback loops for process refinement.
NCL Sustainability Modeling and Workshops:
Demetri suggested dedicating resources to modeling NCL sustainability over longer time horizons and conducting workshops to explain NCL mechanics to the community.
This is substantive educational work requiring dedicated resources.
Treasury Management Framework:
Demetri raised a larger strategic question: Cardano holds approximately $1 billion in treasury reserves with no formal framework for asset management, yield generation, or risk management.
This requires either external consulting or a dedicated treasury working group to:
Develop a treasury management framework
Determine asset allocation strategy
Identify yield-generation opportunities
Present data and recommendations to DReps for decision-making
This is substantial work unsuitable for part-time committee effort and would benefit from professional expertise.
Ongoing Educational Content:
Lloyd confirmed that existing resources already cover:
Explainer articles produced through Intersect
Video walkthroughs (up to 3/month) covered under Lloyd's contract
X Spaces and recorded Q&A sessions covered under existing contracts
6.3 Budget Framework
The committee should target a budget between:
Lower bound: Product Committee model (~100,000-300,000 ADA) — includes modest software improvements and community engagement (pizza parties, workshops)
Upper bound: Open Source Committee model (6+ million ADA) — includes substantial grant programs
Target range: Closer to the Product Committee side, given software requirements and community engagement needs
6.4 Homework and Next Steps
Committee members: Spend time reflecting on priorities and funding needs for the next week.
Wednesday working session: Reconvene to propose a framework identifying 3-5 key initiatives and rough budget allocations.
End of month (Friday): Finalize a "thumbnail sketch" of the committee's budget proposal to submit to ISC and the board.
7. Action Items
Adjust supporting documentation display position in budget tool
Ecclesia team (Adam Dean / Matt)
Move supporting docs to prominent position in output, not bottom
Finalize BPIA templates and share with development team
Simo
By end of week to enable 9-10 day development timeline
Develop working demo of budget tool
Ecclesia team
Expected within ~1 week
Update BPIA language for "strategic pillar" terminology
Simo / Lloyd
Minor rewrite to align with tool implementation
Review cost category alignment with Intersect finance
Simo
Confirm internal reporting compatibility
Implement "what-if" contingency planning language for ADA price fluctuation
Simo / Ecclesia team
Add text field for vendors to plan for price volatility above/below thresholds
Make ADA/USD conversion field optional (helper tool)
Simo
Allow vendors to self-calculate but emphasize contingency planning
Contact current committee members re: April expiration date change
Simo
Confirm acceptance of new two-year term schedule
Prepare for board meeting presentation
Simo / Lloyd / Kristijan
Wednesday board discussion on BPIA and process
Reflect on 2026 budget committee priorities and resource needs
Committee members
Homework for next week; identify 3-5 key initiatives
Propose draft budget framework for committee review
Lloyd / Demetri / Committee
Wednesday working session
Finalize thumbnail budget proposal for ISC
Committee
Due by end of month (February 28, 2026)
8. Adjournment
Lloyd thanked all committee members and guests for their time and contributions. He praised Christina Gianelloni for the valuable insight on contingency planning and noted that several members would immediately transition to the ISC meeting following adjournment.
Next steps:
Wednesday working session to finalize BPIA language and begin budget committee budget planning.
Board presentation Wednesday with Simo, Lloyd, and Kristijan representing the budget committee.
End-of-week BPIA submission to on-chain process if board feedback permits (targeting Friday before epoch end on Saturday).
Budget process launch in early April 2026 (contingent on timely BPIA approval and tool completion).
Meeting adjourned at 00:53:16.
Last updated