> 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/march-16th-2026-budget-comm-minutes.md). # 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: 1. **Budget Process** — primary committee role with funding for workshops and staffing 2. **Tooling** — Ecclesia platform and smart contracts 3. **Audits** — review and reporting role (no funding requested) 4. **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 | Action | Owner | Notes | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ | | 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**. --- # 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/march-16th-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.