> 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/january-12th-2026-budget-comm-minutes.md). # January 12th, 2026 Budget Comm Minutes ## **Budget Committee Weekly Meeting — January 12th, 2026** **Date:** January 12, 2026\ **Time:** 07:57 EST\ **Attendees:** Colleen O’Beirne, Dimitri (Dynamic Strategies), Kriss Baird, Kristijan (Chris) Kowalsky, Lloyd Duhon, Megan Hess (Chair), Nicolas Cerny, Otávio Lima, Rita Mistry, Simo Simovic, Christina Gianelloni (view/listen) **Quorum:** Achieved once Kriss Baird joined (noted during meeting). *** ### **1. Opening and Context** * Lloyd opened the meeting, welcomed attendees, and acknowledged the successful milestone: * **Net Change Limit (NCL) posted on-chain** (committee congratulated for reaching this step). * A phone attendee (+1 864-\*\*\*-\*\*10) was present initially as view-only until identity could be clarified. #### Knowledge Base Maintenance * Nico noted the Budget Committee knowledge base (including member list) is outdated. * Lloyd confirmed this will be updated and cited recent capacity constraints; Simo is now helping with administrative execution. *** ### **2. Net Change Limit (NCL) — Voting Mobilization Strategy** #### 2.1 Current Need * With the NCL live on-chain, the priority is now **increasing DRep participation and vote volume** (and ensuring rationale is provided, especially on “no” votes). #### 2.2 Outreach Channels (Lloyd) Lloyd outlined an outreach plan to mobilize DRep voting: * Direct outreach (“open Rolodex”) to known DReps * DRep forum postings * Cardano official Telegram reminders * Discord channels where DReps congregate * WhatsApp groups * Outreach to Murasaki for Japanese DRep Signal group amplification * Encourage Cardano Foundation and other stakeholders to vote in parallel as they are able Lloyd also noted he is directly chasing “no” voters who did not provide rationale, to capture actionable feedback. #### 2.3 Response to Utah Feedback (NCL Rationale Language) Simo raised a concern about public conversation on X: * Utah questioned a sentence implying the committee considered “future development load in 2026.” * Simo suggested keeping rationale simple: * **“300 + 50” (historic inflows + approved budget actions not yet withdrawn)** rather than future projections. Lloyd stated: * The committee did attempt future-looking outreach to understand likely 2026 load, and the language reflects that intent. * Lloyd will address Utah’s feedback publicly and explain why the language was included. Nico added a general point: * The committee should not overreact to individual DRep preferences; not every comment requires major concession. *** ### **3. ClickUp Plan for Budget Process Execution** Simo provided a project management update: * The committee’s ClickUp workspace includes tasks and milestones for the full 2026 budget process. * Major milestone after NCL: **submit the 2026 Budget Process Plan for approval/vote** (Budget Process Info Action). * Simo will: * Assign dates, priorities, and owners * Confirm access for all voting members * Review the plan in more detail during Wednesday’s working session Lloyd will also post the ClickUp link into committee Discord for easy retrieval. *** ### **4. Product Committee Roadmap / Strategy Status** Rita asked for status of Product Committee roadmap/strategy timelines. Lloyd clarified: * Roadmap approval impacts launching the budget process itself, but does **not block** socializing or approving the **Budget Process Info Action**. * Current status (as observed during the call): * Roadmap approval around **\~33%**, with limited stakeholder push so far. * Lloyd will encourage DReps to vote on all currently open actions while conducting NCL outreach: * Roadmap * Utah’s constitutional change * Any other open governance actions *** ### **5. Budget Process Info Action — Discussion Themes** The committee began framing guidance for improving the Budget Process Info Action: #### 5.1 Make the Process “Year-by-Year,” Not “2026-Only” Lloyd noted the current document references “2026” frequently and should be oriented toward a **repeatable annual process**, with amendments as needed. #### 5.2 Multi-Year Budget Treatment (Key Discussion) Simo asked whether the process should include explicit guidance on multi-year budgets. Nico framed the governance challenge: * Avoid a repeat of last year’s “apples vs oranges vs watermelons” problem: * Proposals spanning very different time horizons (e.g., 6-month builds vs 5-year research plans) * Vision 2030 may provide goals, but not yet clear year-by-year compartmentalization. Chris Baird cautioned against over-constraining too early: * Excessive bounding risks putting the ecosystem “in a box.” Dimitri suggested a practical structure: * Default track for most proposals **≤ 1 year** * Longer-dated proposals handled as **ad hoc** outside the standard budget funnel if needed. Colleen (engineering perspective) supported: * Budgets are typically managed **year-by-year**. Lloyd proposed a hybrid model: * Allow multi-year plans to be presented as multi-year *intent* and transparency, * with year-by-year Treasury withdrawals to preserve accountability and reduce risk. * Multi-year visibility reduces confusion for DReps evaluating year-one work that may not stand alone. Rita aligned: * Multi-year budget planning is valuable for transparency and process efficiency, * but does not guarantee funding continuity—future withdrawals remain contingent on performance. Outcome: * The committee leaned toward **allowing multi-year plans** but maintaining **annual withdrawal accountability** and making disclosures explicit. #### 5.3 Retrospective Reporting Concern Nico referenced community concern (e.g., Gintama forum post): * Some stakeholders want clearer retrospective status on 2025 proposals before discussing new NCL and new cycles. * Not resolved during this meeting, but flagged as a continuing narrative risk. *** ### **6. Decision: Offboard Inactive Member (Rajitha Vikramasan)** #### 6.1 Motion Nico requested initiating formal offboarding of **Rajitha Vikramasan** (elected in May; no participation; non-responsive). * Lloyd confirmed Rajitha is a voting member and has been contacted repeatedly with **no response**, including stipend outreach. **Motion:** Remove Rajitha from the Budget Committee and offer the seat to the **runner-up from the October election**, with special election as fallback if needed. * **Moved:** Nicolas Cerny * **Seconded:** Kristijan Kowalsky * Motion amended to include offering seat to runner-up rather than immediate special election. #### 6.2 Discussion * Dimitri supported filling the seat to improve quorum reliability. * Megan asked about procedure and time frame: * Replacement would serve **until the April election** (Rajitha’s seat was tied to the April cycle). Simo noted there are **two runner-ups tied** with equal votes. Lloyd confirmed: * Offer will go to both; seat goes to **first to accept** (or next if one declines). #### 6.3 Vote (Unanimous) * Dimitri: Yes * Kriss Baird: Yes * Kristijan Kowalsky: Yes * Nicolas Cerny: Yes * Otávio Lima: Yes * Rita Mistry: Yes * Megan Hess: Yes **Result:** Motion PASSES unanimously. #### 6.4 Follow-Up * Simo will provide contact details for the tied runner-ups. * Lloyd will contact both and onboard the first acceptance. *** ### **7. Clarification: Proposal Fee vs 100,000 ADA Deposit** Kriss asked for clarity on why: * Proposal fee is **500–1,000 ADA**, while another requirement references **100,000 ADA**. Lloyd clarified: * **500–1,000 ADA fee**: payable by all proposers to participate; paid into Treasury as repayment for process overhead. * Treasury withdrawals will be bundled: * Two groupings: **67–75%** and **75–100%** (per current draft approach). Simo confirmed the 75% split was suggested by the Budget Committee for equal-percentage framing. *** ### **8. Additional Notes** Rita noted: * The committee’s discussions may influence future **budget templates**; members should send her template ideas as they arise. Lloyd confirmed templates are next major step after process approval, but current priority is completing and finalizing process language. *** ### **9. Action Items** | Action | Owner | Notes | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Update Budget Committee knowledge base/member list | Lloyd + Simo | Address outdated records (members list, documentation) | | Execute NCL voting outreach plan across channels (DRep forum, Telegram, Discord, WhatsApp, direct calls, Japan DRep group) | Lloyd | Include follow-ups for “no” votes lacking rationale | | Respond publicly to Utah question re: NCL rationale language | Lloyd | Clarify why future-looking language was included; keep focus on participation | | Publish ClickUp link in committee Discord; validate member access | Lloyd + Simo | Confirm all voting members have access | | Begin offboarding Rajitha; contact tied runner-ups and onboard first acceptance | Lloyd + Simo | Runner-up term ends April election | | Continue BPIA refinement; incorporate multi-year disclosure approach and annual accountability | Committee | Primary focus of Wednesday working session | *** ### **10. Adjournment** * Lloyd thanked members for participation and emphasized the immediate next step: * Deep working session on the **Budget Process Info Action** on Wednesday. * Meeting adjourned at approximately **00:56:41**. --- # 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/january-12th-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.