February 2nd, 2026 Budget Comm Minutes
Budget Committee Weekly Meeting — February 2nd, 2026
Date: February 2, 2026 Time: 07:58 EST
Attendees:
Eric Helms (SCATDAO), Georgia Hutton (Delivery Assurance), Jose Velazquez, Kriss Baird, Kristijan (Chris) Kowalsky, Lloyd Duhon (Secretary), Megan Hess (Chair), Nikhil Shetty, Patrick Tobler, Randy Randy, Rita Mistry, Simo Simovic (Project Manager), Vinay Devabhakthuni, Vinit Inamke
Quorum: Confirmed.
1. Opening and Agenda
Lloyd opened the meeting, confirmed quorum, and outlined the primary objective:
Final review and committee vote on the Budget Process Info Action (BPIA) to move it forward to board approval and on-chain submission.
A secondary focus was a status update on the Net Change Limit (NCL) vote and continued refinement of the BPIA language, including work package budgeting, cost categories, communications planning, and educational materials.
2. Net Change Limit (NCL) Update
2.1 Current Status
Simo reported the NCL was at 49.37% approval as of the morning check.
Several large DReps, including CF, had not yet cast their votes.
Lloyd confirmed that, following discussions, there was no known objection from outstanding voters.
2.2 Outlook
Committee expects the NCL to pass the 50% threshold once remaining ballots are cast.
3. Budget Process Info Action (BPIA) — Review and Discussion
3.1 Recap from Wednesday Working Session
Simo noted that Stage 0 had been agreed upon in the prior working session.
Discussion on Stage 1 had begun, with several changes made since:
Milestones replaced with work packages — work packages allow for both large and small proposals to be more granular or less granular as the proposer prefers.
Projected ROI is now scoped per work package rather than per budget line item.
Vendors can now include a link to their supporting documentation within the template.
3.2 Work Package Usability Concerns
Kriss Baird raised concerns about user acceptance testing:
No fully loaded, granular proposal had been tested through the UI.
Risk that the final output could be a worse experience for proposers or DReps if untested.
Kristijan Kowalsky noted the current UI mockup is an AI-generated frame, not a functional program.
Simo confirmed:
The Ecclesia (Adam Dean) team has agreed to begin development.
Templates and UI mockups have been shared with the dev team.
A working demo is expected within one week.
Full tool delivery is targeted for end of February / early March (~6 weeks from prior week).
3.3 Budget Granularity Resolution
Rita Mistry provided context:
Templates were built by reviewing prior budget proposals including KPIs, milestones, and abstracts.
Cost categories are bucketed (e.g., resources, infrastructure) rather than requiring individual line items.
Goal is to make proposals comparable for DReps while capturing enough detail to understand the rationale behind figures.
Kriss Baird acknowledged this addressed his concern from the prior week about excessive granularity.
Lloyd noted that a future CSV import / API import feature could further streamline proposer experience in subsequent budget rounds.
Committee consensus:
Cost categories should be consolidated, not granular line items.
Constraints are beneficial for apples-to-apples comparison across proposals.
3.4 Treasury Withdrawal Governance Action (TWGA) Language
Simo flagged that the term "single budget set" needed correction — the process produces two Treasury Withdrawal Governance Actions (TWGAs), not one.
Lloyd clarified the consolidation process:
All proposals meeting the ≥67% approval threshold from Stage 2 are consolidated into two TWGAs.
Committee agreed to ensure consistent use of the full term "Treasury Withdrawal Governance Action" throughout the document.
3.5 Administration and Permissionless Participation
Kristijan Kowalsky raised questions about scope:
This is a Cardano budget process run through Intersect, open to anyone — not limited to Intersect members.
External entities can use the process but opt out of Intersect as administrator, in which case they must produce their own TWGA.
Lloyd confirmed:
Stage 4 should explicitly state that proposals not selecting Intersect as administrator must file their own TWGA.
Simo noted this was in his working notes but not yet in the info action document.
3.6 Proposal Gatekeeping Boundaries
Kristijan flagged language suggesting the budget committee and Intersect team would "identify and document overlapping proposals."
Committee concern:
The budget committee should not act as a gatekeeper on proposal content.
Simo and Lloyd clarified:
The only actual gatekeep is whether Intersect can accept the project for administration.
Beyond that, checks are procedural: treasury fee paid, all required fields completed, process followed in full.
3.7 Communications Plan Discussion
Kriss Baird raised the need for a substantive communications plan to avoid repeating issues from the 2025 budget cycle:
Last year's communications suffered from blind spots, insufficient resources, and confusion across multiple voting stages.
Education materials are mentioned in the BPIA but without enough specificity.
Rita Mistry responded:
The committee has already been socializing the process extensively through X Spaces, community feedback sessions, and iterative template discussions.
Standardized templates and hover-over explanations in the tool will further support education.
Lloyd noted:
Stage 0 focuses on on-chain prerequisites — a comms plan may better fit in Stage 1 (Preparation and Data Collection).
Proposal: mandate that a comms plan exists, is resourced, and is executed, without being overly prescriptive in an on-chain document.
Kristijan Kowalsky cautioned:
Educational materials require budget and resourcing — the committee is a paid committee but not a funded working group for content production.
Intersect office should confirm feasibility before committing to deliverables.
Lloyd confirmed existing resources:
Explainer articles are already being produced through Intersect.
Video walkthroughs (up to 3/month) are covered under Lloyd's contract.
X Spaces / recorded Q&A sessions are also contracted and will continue.
Rita suggested committee members create ideal example proposals to serve as both a UI test and educational reference.
3.8 Cost Categories and Reviewer Benefit Text
Kriss Baird noted the reviewer benefit text in the work package section was outdated — references to granular unit cost comparisons no longer apply.
Benchmarking links were also flagged as redundant given the move to consolidated cost categories.
Rita requested all committee members review the cost categories to ensure completeness and alignment with Intersect's internal financial reporting needs.
Simo agreed to check internally with the Intersect core team and finance on cost category alignment.
4. Committee Vote — Budget Process Info Action
4.1 Motion
Kristijan Kowalsky moved to accept the Budget Process Info Action as-is, with the understanding that tooling details will evolve and outstanding text refinements will be made.
Megan Hess seconded the motion.
Kriss Baird added an amendment: acceptance is conditional on the discussed changes being made (cost categories, reviewer benefit text, TWGA language).
Kristijan accepted the amendment.
4.2 Roll Call Vote
Eric Helms (SCATDAO)
Yes
Jose Velazquez
Yes
Kriss Baird
Yes
Kristijan (Chris) Kowalsky
Yes
Rita Mistry
Yes
Megan Hess
Yes
Result: Motion carries unanimously.
5. Action Items
Apply outstanding BPIA text edits (TWGA language, reviewer benefit, cost categories)
Simo / Committee
Per amendment conditions
Share final template form with Ecclesia dev team
Simo
To begin tool development
Confirm cost categories with Intersect finance team
Simo
Ensure alignment with internal reporting
Add Stage 4 language re: self-administered TWGAs
Simo / Lloyd
For proposals not using Intersect as administrator
Produce working demo of budget tool
Ecclesia (Adam Dean) team
Expected within ~1 week
Develop comms plan to support process execution
Lloyd / Simo
Alongside Stage 1 preparation
Create example "ideal proposal" for testing and education
Committee members / Rita
UI validation + educational reference
Continue educational content production (articles, walkthroughs, X Spaces)
Lloyd
Covered under existing contract
Submit BPIA to board for final approval
Committee / Simo
Following text refinements
6. Adjournment
Lloyd thanked the committee for their time and noted the successful unanimous vote on the BPIA. Several members will continue into the ISC meeting immediately following.
Next steps:
Wednesday working session to finalize outstanding BPIA text edits per the amendment conditions.
Move BPIA to board review and on-chain submission once edits are complete.
Meeting adjourned at 01:02:01.
Last updated