> 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/june-8th-2026-budget-comm-minutes.md). # June 8th, 2026 Budget Comm Minutes ### Budget Committee Weekly Meeting — June 8th, 2026 **Date:** June 8, 2026 **Time:** 09:00 EDT **Attendees:** Can ("John") Huzmeli, Christina Gianelloni (visitor), Colleen O'Beirne (Cardano Foundation), Eric Helms (SCATDAO), Fanny Wijaya, Jose Velazquez, Kristijan (Chris) Kowalsky, Lloyd Duhon (Secretary), Megan Hess (Chair), Nicolas Cerny, Otávio Lima, Rodrigo Pacini, Simo Simovic (Project Manager), Stephen Wood (Cardano Foundation) **Quorum:** Confirmed. > **Context:** Full roster present. Three threads: (1) **chair/vice-chair election results**; (2) a **status check on Ecclesia voting** (the process cleared its validity bar); and (3) a wide-ranging **Q3 / "what's next" discussion** covering the budget process's future, the ADA-price problem and milestone/contract mechanics, and ecosystem maturity. *** ### 1. Chair and Vice-Chair Election Results Simo reported that vice-chair voting has **closed**. With **8 members voting**: * **Megan Hess — re-elected Chair** (5 votes). * **Kristijan (Chris) Kowalsky — Vice Chair** (3 votes). Per policy, both top finishers must confirm. Megan continues as chair; **Kristijan confirmed** he accepts the vice-chair role (policy allows the runner-up to decline, which would trigger another election). Both are now **officially seated**. Lloyd will update the committee knowledge base to reflect the leadership structure. *** ### 2. End-of-Quarter Planning and IC Reporting Simo flagged the upcoming **Q2 reporting and Q3 planning** cycle: * Dedicated **quarter-planning time** is set for roughly the **week of June 22**. * In the **week of June 29**, committees present **Q2 achievements and Q3 plans** to the board and heads of function at an IC call (the second such review this year, following Q1, where all major milestones were reported met). * Simo is preparing a communication with the comms team, to be shared with secretaries/committees shortly, and will align timelines on an IC call. *** ### 3. Ecclesia Voting Status Simo shared preliminary results (still using community tooling — the Civotas explorer Nico shared — because the Intersect/Ecclesia tool now matches the committee's calculations but requires clicking into each proposal's preliminary results; **no results are final until the audit**). * **9 proposals currently passing** the 67% threshold — a major improvement over last week, when **none** were passing. * **Total ADA voting: \~2.9 billion** (approaching 3B) — comfortably above the committee's **2 billion ADA** validity floor (results below 2B were not to be trusted). Lloyd noted this demonstrates real DRep engagement and value in the tool. * **\~62 DReps** have voted. **Emurgo** and **Euroy** had not yet voted on all proposals; their remaining votes could shift the count. * The 9th passing proposal was **MLabs at \~70%**; a few sit around 60–64% and below. Projected final: roughly **9–10 passing**. *** ### 4. DRep "Yuta" — Response Posted Lloyd confirmed he had **posted the committee's response to Yuta on X** (where Yuta said he was watching responses), but has had **no reply** and Yuta has **not changed his vote**. * **Nico** noted Yuta has repeatedly stated he is reviewing all responses **in the Hydra voting tool** (he uses its API) and is doing another check today — so the response should be posted there too. * **Lloyd** posted the response in the voting tool during the meeting. Because the tool caps comments at \~2,000 characters, he left a **short response plus a link** to the full reply (mirroring Yuta's own use of a link). *** ### 5. "What's Next" — Q3 Direction and Strategic Discussion Lloyd framed the open discussion: the budget process was prepared, launched, and has hit its validity numbers — so the committee must now decide its next phase. The working plan has been to complete the 2026 process, ensure proper go-live (vendors contracted, smart contracts in place, funds flowing), then begin a **listening-and-understanding cycle** to prepare a better 2027 process. #### 5.1 Feedback and Timing * **Megan:** Gather **budget-process feedback while it's fresh**; consider how it fits with the planned post-funding workshops. * **Nico:** By **Friday** the committee will know whether its own proposal clears the threshold (and even then, the on-chain treasury withdrawal must still be submitted and approved). Suggested **waiting until Friday** to finalize H2 planning. If unfunded, take the proposal as the basis for the H2 plan but **scale it down** — e.g., **online retro sessions** instead of in-person events. Noted **Intersect Work Package 3** could fund "other processes," potentially including the 2027 budget process. Emphasized the value of having a group focused on a **better process than the current "race to the NCL."** * **Christina (visitor):** Strongly urged **starting the budget cycle far earlier** — securing a yearly budget in Q2 is backwards. Aim to nail the process and a new NCL so proposals can come in **Q1 at the latest**, ideally **wrapped by Q4** for a proper start. Much of the "front-running" criticism stemmed from people simply trying to kick off a long-overdue process. * **Lloyd:** Agreed strongly. The original goal was an October launch, delayed because the 2030 roadmap had to be finished first. The **18-month NCL** was a compromise to reset the fiscal year, but it didn't work because the NCL simply got filled. * **Kristijan:** Added timeline history — the cadence decision was made last year (Vegas), targeting an April-ish start this year and **January for 2027**. The committee was ready in November, but **product/tooling and KPIs were not**. Businesses run Jan–Dec; a workable model is **process in Nov, payout in Jan** so teams can plan. There is no consensus on fiscal-year start (some wanted June/July; some DReps refuse to vote over Christmas). The committee's position has been a January start. #### 5.2 The ADA-Price / Milestone Problem A significant portion of the discussion addressed ADA price volatility undermining funded budgets (proposals submitted at \~25–30 cents; ADA now \~16 cents — a \~40–50% effective cut). * **Nico:** Raised a downside-management gap the Civics Committee may ask the Budget Committee's opinion on. Example: the IO research proposal expired today, budgeted at 25 cents/ADA, now \~16 cents. The proposal contains **no language managing that downside**. **Intersect as administrator must ensure proposals uphold their end of the bargain; if they can't, the money should return to the treasury.** What must **not** happen is a quiet **rearrangement/downgrade of milestones between administrator and proposer** — that would violate community governance. * **Can ("John") Huzmeli:** Explained the smart-contract mechanics. The administrator's only options are: (a) **stay in ADA** — same ADA, same milestones; or (b) **match to USDC**, set to the ADA amount on the **day of signature** (so if ADA is \~15 cents at signing, that's the USDC equivalent). **The risk sits entirely with the company, not Intersect.** The practical consequence: teams facing \~40% less cash flow than planned may simply **cancel their contracts** rather than deliver at a loss. * **Christina:** Vehemently opposed letting proposers **redefine milestones** because the price moved — funds should be **returned** and a new proposal resubmitted at current rates; the community voted for specific outcomes. Noted many proposals included **contingency funds** intended to offset exactly this, though some DReps have argued (questionably) that using them this way isn't appropriate. * **Stephen Wood:** Argued ADA is **too volatile to budget in** — a speculative asset, not money in the traditional sense. A fundamental fix worth considering: denominate/pay in **stablecoins**. Forcing proposers to pick an ADA price and pack in contingencies defeats the purpose of a budget. * **Kristijan:** DReps won't approve **top-ups for price drops** — that's unreasonable. Pointed to a **systemic need for faster, more agile governance**; current processes take weeks. Real-world stakes are severe — builders are closing shops; on a Friday call, developers without work were asking for any incoming opportunities. #### 5.3 Ecosystem Maturity and Accountability * **Christina:** Cited **Tap Tools'** shutdown announcement despite receiving \~**$500K from CBD DAO (in USD) over \~9 months** (including \~$150K recently) — raising questions about overhead and management. * **Lloyd:** These are privately held, often very young entities in an immature ecosystem lacking the delivery-and-solvency proof requirements common in government contracting. Compared it to the dot-com era (where only Google survived the perks-driven excess). Tap Tools also suffered a **brain drain** — technical staff left — and the wider ecosystem is losing talent to better-paying AI/other work amid high friction. * **Christina:** Suggested funded teams may need **business-leadership training** — a possible future initiative, with stronger requirements on funded teams. * **Nico:** Framed it as a crypto-wide problem — ecosystems "subsidize the hell out of" projects, and many teams learn to **farm grants** rather than build sustainable business models. Predicted a **"great washout" in 2026** that clears out funding-seekers, leaving dedicated teams genuinely building toward revenue — the ones worth supporting (versus "600K ADA for a calendar" or "1M ADA for a dashboard"). * **Lloyd:** Reflected on the broader financialization of open ecosystems, and committed to keep grappling with it — with or without funding. *** ### 6. Path Forward Lloyd will **reflect on the discussion and bring back a cogent proposal next week**, leading with Christina's point about running the process earlier. The working goal: use **Q3 to prepare and launch a 2027 budget process in Q4**, not waiting on funding. He noted he has already built and **open-sourced one dashboard with no funding**, and the committee can continue doing what it can with available resources while making the case to the broader community over time. > **Transition note:** Lloyd stated that his **Intersect contract is expected to expire around August** and he is not aware of plans to renew it. He intends to remain available to help the committee reach the Q4 launch point and is open to continuing in Cardano on a volunteer basis, but his primary focus afterward will be his local business. (Captured as stated in the meeting; flagged for the committee's continuity planning.) *** ### 7. Action Items | Action | Owner | Notes | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------- | ----------------------------------------------- | | Update committee knowledge base with new chair/vice-chair structure | Lloyd | Megan (Chair), Kristijan (Vice Chair) | | Post the Yuta response in the Hydra voting tool (short reply + link) | Lloyd | Done in-call; Yuta reviews via the tool's API | | Share end-of-quarter comms/timeline for Q2 reporting and Q3 planning | Simo | To secretaries/committees; \~today/tomorrow | | Monitor Ecclesia results through Friday (Emurgo/Euroy votes pending) | Committee | \~9–10 projected to pass; not final until audit | | Wait for Friday's outcome before finalizing H2 plan; scale down if unfunded | Committee | Online retros instead of in-person events | | Gather budget-process feedback while fresh; align with post-funding workshops | Megan / committee | Q3 | | Develop committee position on milestone/price downside (return-to-treasury vs. no quiet milestone downgrades) | Committee (with Civics) | Triggered by ADA price drop | | Prepare a cogent "what's next / 2027 process" proposal for next week | Lloyd | Lead with earlier process timing | | Continue committee continuity planning given secretary contract timeline | Committee | Lloyd's Intersect contract \~August | *** ### 8. Adjournment With several members due at the Intersect Steering Committee call, Lloyd closed the meeting, thanking everyone for moving the work forward and committing to bring a thumbnail of next steps to the **Wednesday (June 10) working session**. **Headline outcomes:** * **Election results:** Megan Hess re-elected **Chair** (5 votes); Kristijan Kowalsky elected **Vice Chair** (3 votes); 8 members voted; both confirmed and seated. * **Process validity achieved:** **9 proposals passing** the 67% threshold (up from zero last week), **\~2.9B ADA** voting (above the 2B floor), **\~62 DReps** participating; MLabs the 9th at \~70%; \~9–10 projected to pass pending Emurgo/Euroy. * **Yuta response** posted to X earlier and now to the Hydra voting tool (where he actively reviews); no reply or vote change yet. * **Q3 direction:** wait for Friday's funding outcome; if unfunded, scale the plan down (online retros, no in-person events); Intersect WP3 could fund the 2027 process. Strong consensus to **start the next cycle far earlier** (aim Q4 launch for 2027). * **ADA-price problem front and center:** proposals budgeted at 25–30¢ now face \~16¢; smart contract puts the risk on proposers (stay in ADA or lock USDC at signing-day rate); committee leans toward **return-to-treasury over quiet milestone downgrades**; contingency funds and possible stablecoin denomination discussed. * **Maturity theme:** ecosystem grant-farming, brain drain, and a likely 2026 "washout"; ideas floated around business-leadership requirements for funded teams. * **Continuity note:** secretary (Lloyd) contract expected to end \~August; flagged for committee planning. Meeting adjourned after **01:06:54**. --- # 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/june-8th-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.