March 16th, 2026 Budget Comm Minutes
Budget Committee Weekly Meeting — March 16th, 2026
Date: March 16, 2026 Time: 07:38 CDT
Attendees:
Alice Mafuko, Christina Gianelloni, Dynamic Strategies, Eric Helms (SCATDAO), Georgia Hutton (Delivery Assurance), Jed H, Kristijan (Chris) Kowalsky, Kriss Baird, Lloyd Duhon (Secretary), Megan Hess (Chair), Nicolas Cerny, Otávio Lima, Simo Simovic (Project Manager), Sozon-Apostolos Iriotis, Stephen Wood (Cardano Foundation - Visitor)
Quorum: Confirmed.
1. Opening and Agenda
Lloyd opened the meeting and confirmed quorum. The primary agenda item was review and refinement of the 2026 Budget Committee Budget Ask (the budget request the committee is submitting to Intersect for operations and initiatives).
The document outlines four key initiatives:
Budget Process — primary committee role with funding for workshops and staffing
Tooling — Ecclesia platform and smart contracts
Audits — review and reporting role (no funding requested)
Treasury Transparency Initiative — innovation workflow to improve DRep decision-making
Lloyd emphasized that this is a draft document in development, with feedback to be incorporated by Wednesday's working session, with the goal of finalizing by end of week.
2. Document Scope and Audience Clarification
2.1 Target Audience and Structure
Megan Hess clarified the target audience:
Immediate: Intersect Board (for approval)
Secondary: DReps (for treasury decision-making)
Timeline for specific budget numbers to be added later; Lloyd emphasizes starting with deliverables rather than figures
2.2 Committee vs. Intersect Organizational Boundaries
Nicolas Cerny raised concern that many line items appear to be broader Intersect operations (Delivery Assurance team, shared infrastructure) rather than Budget Committee-specific activities. Discussion clarified:
RACI Framework: Need clear delineation of who is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed for each budget line
Committee work (workshops, process governance) vs. Intersect-provided services (staffing, tooling development, vendor management) must be distinguished
Georgia Hutton tasked with reviewing document from Intersect resource perspective
3. Expert Review and DRep Capacity Discussion
3.1 Problem Statement
The committee discussed a core governance challenge: DReps lack time and expertise to adequately evaluate all proposals, yet outsourcing all decisions to expert committees risks centralizing power and diminishing DRep agency.
Key concerns raised:
Conflicts of Interest: Most expert-level Cardano knowledge resides within the Cardano ecosystem, creating unavoidable conflicts when insiders review proposals from competing projects
Insufficient Compensation: DReps may not receive adequate compensation for expanded workload; current 500 ADA stipend insufficient relative to time required
Vendor Alignment: If expert reviewers are funded by or employed by major vendors in the ecosystem, their independence and credibility is compromised
3.2 Potential Solutions
Kristijan Kowalsky proposed a contractual expert committee model:
Identify independent experts (compensated for fixed engagement period)
Separate expert review from final DRep voting decision-making
Similar to European grant evaluation structures with independent review panels
Dynamic Strategies suggested:
Implement market-rate compensation for proposal reviewers (estimated €200-300/hour, ~€1000 per proposal for high-level assessment)
Consider recovering review costs from funded proposals rather than upfront treasury expenditure
Longer-term compensation structure for DRep service
Kriss Baird contextualized the challenge through comparative government experience (Innovate UK, European Commission, DARPA):
Outside ecosystem, external experts available but less invested in Cardano success
Risk of adversarial actors or misaligned incentives when sourcing expertise externally
Likely higher cost to contract external expertise; price discovery needed
Realistic but necessary trade-off: quality expertise comes at premium cost
3.3 Committee Consensus
No single solution agreed, but consensus that this is a critical gap requiring funding and experimentation. The Treasury Transparency Initiative identified as the vehicle to pilot solutions.
4. Proposal Quality and Accountability
4.1 Assessment Process Issues
Christina Gianelloni shared detailed findings from recent proposal reviews, highlighting gaps in proposal quality and verification:
Inconsistent Evidence: Many proposals lack hard data verification; claims presented as "trust me bro" without supporting documentation
EClesía-Sunday Labs Mismatch: Proposals in Ecclesía tool do not align with milestone tracking in Sunday Labs, making DRep evaluation difficult
Maintenance Proposal Example: ADA Stat proposal repeated identical boilerplate across milestones, only changing month numbers; no evidence of actual work delivered
4.2 Intersect Accountability
Christina also raised concerns about Intersect vendor compliance:
Some vendors paid without submitting proof of work
Public perception damaged when work output not transparently documented
Georgia Hutton and Intersect delivery team acknowledged these are operational, not budget committee, issues but recognized perception impacts process credibility
4.3 Need for Rubric and Assessment Framework
Christina Gianelloni noted she has developed a proposal assessment rubric that could:
Standardize evaluation across reviewers
Identify weak or missing information
Improve proposal quality over time by setting expectations
Serve as basis for training and consistency
Kristijan Kowalsky emphasized that without standardized KPIs and evaluation methodology, even expert committees will struggle to assess proposals consistently.
5. Timeline and Communications Planning
5.1 Budget Process Timeline Review
Simo presented the 2026 budget process timeline:
Submission window: ~3 weeks (starting early April)
Review and feedback loop: 6 weeks
Off-chain voting: 14-20 days (to be confirmed)
On-chain voting: 6 epochs (30 days)
Total duration from submission to on-chain vote: ~60-70 days
5.2 Timeline Concerns
Kristijan Kowalsky advocated for pushing process start from April 6 to April 16:
April 6 is day after Easter; poor timing given holiday fatigue
Need additional socialization period for DReps who experienced challenges in 2025 cycle
Rushing NCL vote + process launch creates coordination burden
Kriss Baird countered that DReps have had a year since last cycle to prepare.
Timeline decision: April 16 start date preferred pending further confirmation.
5.3 Early Proposal Form Release
Nicolas Cerny recommended releasing the proposal submission form in advance (several weeks before submission window opens):
Allows teams to prepare proposals incrementally rather than last-minute rush
Better quality submissions if teams have time to develop thoughtful proposals
Simo agreed to coordinate with Lloyd and comms team to publish submission form this week
6. Communications Plan and Public Education
6.1 Status Update
Lloyd provided communications update directly:
Video production: Completed 14-minute long-form process overview video (in post-production, to be released next week)
AI translation: Using AI tools for Japanese and Spanish versions (AI-generated, preserves Lloyd's voice)
Staffing: New communications lead (Lissa) assigned; coordination with Ian and Neil underway
Contracted resources: Lloyd's video production contracted this cycle (improvement over prior year when videos produced but not published)
Intersect 16-week communications plan: Already in motion, socializing the budget process
6.2 Committee Concerns
Kriss Baird strongly advocated for alignment between budget timeline and communications strategy:
2025 cycle was "biggest cluster" due to fragmented, disaggregated comms strategy
Cannot repeat last year's mistakes; early visibility to comms plan essential
Recommended Wednesday working session include full comms plan presentation from Intersect stakeholders (Lissa, Ian, Neil)
Emphasized: socialization must begin weeks before process opens, not day-one launch
Consensus: Comms plan presentation to be opening agenda item for Wednesday working session.
6.3 Public Timeline Disclosure
Christina Gianelloni asked whether she could publicly disclose that budget proposal collection is targeted for April (without specific dates):
Lloyd approved: Yes, 100%
Simo noted: Blog post already published about budget process mentioning early April timeline
Date hiding was temporary (draft phase); comms team authorized to reference April launch
7. Treasury Transparency Initiative
7.1 Scope and Goals
The Treasury Transparency Initiative emerged as a key pillar to address expert review, DRep capacity, and proposal quality gaps:
Pilot program to improve quality of information DReps use to make decisions
Fund expert guidance, assessment frameworks, or independent review mechanisms
Measurable, demonstrable improvements with iteration planned for future cycles
Start small given limited budget availability; avoid overpromising
7.2 Funding Constraints and Approach
Hard cap: ~1 million ADA total for all four budget initiatives combined
Committee must stay well under cap unless strongly justified
Budget must be frugal, meaningful, well-documented, easily followed
Committee must serve as model for responsible treasury spending
8. Homework and Next Steps
Lloyd assigned homework for all committee members:
Add substantive items and feedback to the budget ask document by Wednesday
Submit comments/edits covering all four initiative areas
Prepare for Wednesday working session with two main agenda items:
Communications plan presentation and alignment review
Final budget ask document refinement and polishing
Lloyd plans to publish comms plan in Discord and Slack channels for Wednesday review.
9. Action Items
Review budget ask document and submit feedback for all four initiatives
Committee members
Due by Wednesday working session
Clarify RACI framework (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) for budget line items
Simo / Lloyd
Distinguish committee vs. Intersect organizational ownership
Review document from Intersect resource perspective; identify required staffing and services
Georgia Hutton
Delivery Assurance team perspective
Coordinate with Lissa, Ian, Neil for Wednesday comms plan presentation
Lloyd
Opening agenda item for Wednesday working session
Publish proposal submission form (word document with all questions) to comms channels
Simo / Lloyd / Comms team
This week to enable early proposal preparation
Finalize budget process timeline confirmation, including April 16 start date decision
Simo / Lloyd
Pending final sign-off
Develop Treasury Transparency Initiative work plan (expert review, assessment framework, DRep education)
Committee / Lloyd / Simo
As part of budget ask refinement
Prepare communications strategy alignment briefing
Intersect comms team (Lissa/Ian/Neil)
For Wednesday presentation
Review and iterate budget ask document
Committee
Final refinement session Wednesday
10. Adjournment
Lloyd thanked the committee for their time and the substantive discussion on budget priorities, governance gaps, and communications strategy.
Next steps:
Committee members add feedback and edits to budget ask document by Wednesday
Publish proposal submission form to Slack/Discord this week
Wednesday working session: comms plan presentation (opening item) and final budget ask refinement
Finalize budget ask by end of week for board submission
Meeting adjourned at 01:10:07.
Last updated