> 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-23rd-2026-budget-comm-minutes.md). # March 23rd, 2026 Budget Comm Minutes ### Budget Committee Weekly Meeting — March 23rd, 2026 **Date:** March 23, 2026 **Time:** 07:58 CDT **Attendees:** Abhik Nag (Membership & Community Committee — visitor), Ahmed Kadiri, Christina Gianelloni, Dynamic Strategies (Dimitri), Eric Helms (SCATDAO), Georgia Hutton (Delivery Assurance), Jose Velazquez, Kriss Baird, Kristijan (Chris) Kowalsky, Lloyd Duhon (Secretary), Mark Bùi, Megan Hess (Chair), Nicolas Cerny, Otávio Lima, Simo Simovic (Project Manager) **Quorum:** Confirmed. *** ### 1. Opening and Headline News Lloyd opened the meeting and confirmed quorum. The meeting opened with positive news on the **2026 Budget Process Info Action**: * The info action has surpassed the **>50% Yes threshold**, with approximately **3.1 billion ADA voted Yes**. * **13 days remain** in the voting window. The committee will continue to work toward higher participation, with a stretch goal of crossing 60% (and potentially 67%). * Because this is an **info action**, there is no enactment/ratification phase — the action stays open for the full six-epoch voting window. The committee will not formally announce passage until the window closes, but acknowledged the milestone internally. Lloyd noted that several **No votes contained constructive feedback** that should be incorporated into the **2027 budget process update**, and floated the idea of a future "Yes-with-improvements" voting pattern as a more productive use of dissent. *** ### 2. Communications and Video Production Update Lloyd reported on the comms workstream: * All required graphics were received Friday; videos are now in **final polish**. * The **first video** is scheduled to publish shortly, with additional videos rolling out across the week. * Timing aligns well with the info action passing — videos will help set expectations for the upcoming process. *** ### 3. Committee Budget Ask — Document Review Simo introduced a **new working document** for the Committee Budget Ask, modeled on the template the Civics Committee used. The document has been moved into the Budget Committee shared folder; all members should have access. #### 3.1 Document Structure The template includes: * Purpose and internal executive-team guidance * Alignment with **2030 Vision** strategic pillars and KPIs * A table for each of the four committee initiatives #### 3.2 Initiatives and Preliminary Estimates Simo populated **starting-point budget estimates** for discussion (not final figures): 1. **Budget Process** — estimate based on internal knowledge of this year's spend. 2. **Tooling / Software (Ecclesia)** — figures supplied by the internal team. 3. **Treasury Transparency Initiative** — rough estimate; needs committee discussion. 4. **Audits** — no funding requested (covered in the core budget). Simo noted he benchmarked the asks against the **Product Committee's prior- and current-year workshop budgets**, and recommended the Budget Committee not exceed those amounts. The 2030 Vision work is important, but the budget process itself remains the committee's priority and should set a frugal example. #### 3.3 Board Engagement Megan and Lloyd will join the **ISC call immediately following this meeting**, where the Board will see the budget slide and ask questions. The committee was reminded to review the document and surface objections or omissions now, since the draft is being shown to the Board. *** ### 4. Meet-the-Committee X-Spaces / Virtual Hub Simo flagged a scheduling action: * The Budget Committee needs a representative on **X-Spaces / Virtual Hub** sessions for the upcoming committee elections. * Initially only **April 14** appeared available (3:30 p.m. UTC / 5:30 p.m. local), but Valeria subsequently confirmed **April 7 and April 14** are both options. * Megan (Chair) and Nico were identified as good candidates to join. * Simo will post the Luma calendar dates in Discord; final selection to be confirmed there. *** ### 5. DRep Compensation — Scope Discussion **Dynamic Strategies (Dimitri)** asked whether the committee should opine on DRep remuneration and include it in the budget ask. **Discussion:** * **Nico** clarified that the Civics Committee will **not** carry an individual-member DRep stipend initiative, because items in a committee budget should benefit Cardano broadly or be a shared responsibility — not a single member. Funding individual member work via the committee budget would create a conflict of interest. * **Lloyd** agreed: the committee should not stand up and propose paying DReps directly. If a DRep stipend initiative is to happen, it should originate from outside the committee and use the standard process. * **Limited exception:** A **research-only pilot** could be appropriate — e.g., setting aside time to interview DReps (including those who did not vote in the 2026 cycle) to understand barriers to participation, possibly with a small survey honorarium. This could feed the **>70% participation rate** target referenced in the 2030 Vision KPIs. **Direction:** Dimitri will draft language under the Treasury Transparency section (5.3) framing this as research, not direct DRep funding. Committee will review. *** ### 6. Treasury Transparency Initiative — Expansion The committee reaffirmed Treasury Transparency as the **most innovative element** of the 2026 ask and the area deserving the most attention. Several sub-initiatives were proposed for inclusion under this umbrella: #### 6.1 Improved Dashboards and Tracking **Nico** proposed strengthening the language around community-facing dashboards: * Improve the ability for anyone in the community to track and monitor budgets — not only where Intersect is the budget administrator. * Where vendors use the **standard smart contract patterns developed by SundaeSwap and TxPipe** (and at least one other contributor Nico noted he was forgetting), that data should be fetchable and visualizable. * Existing SundaeSwap and SEO dashboards are a good start, but the community needs something easier: wallet-registered notifications for proposal updates, milestone hits, pauses, etc. * Goal: reduce the on-chain-sleuth workload required to follow proposal status across Ecclesia, Sundae, and other tools. #### 6.2 Education for Funded Teams **Nico** also raised that funded teams are not consistently proactive in updating the community on milestone progress: * Administrators can shoulder some reporting, but proposing teams should be **educated on how to communicate effectively** with the community. * This belongs in the Treasury Transparency umbrella as an education line item. #### 6.3 Push/Pull Notifier and Bounty Mechanism **Lloyd** suggested a **bounty model** (similar to what was done for wallet providers): publish defined infrastructure deliverables with attached bounties so community builders can pick them up and ship. #### 6.4 DRep Participation Research As discussed in Section 5, a research line item to understand DRep participation barriers will be added here. #### 6.5 Champion / Section Owner Simo asked the committee to **designate a champion** for Initiative 3 (Treasury Transparency) — Megan was the original sponsor. The champion will write a more detailed description of outcomes and deliverables for Wednesday's session. #### 6.6 Substructure **Dimitri** asked whether Section 5.3 should be split into 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3 to reflect the multiple sub-initiatives. Direction: keep the single Treasury Transparency work package header, with sub-initiatives organized beneath it. Lloyd and Simo will work on the structure once the content is in. *** ### 7. Strategic Pillar Alignment **Kriss Baird** asked for clarification on Section 3.2 (Strategic Alignment), noting overlap between **Pillar 4 (Community)** and **Pillar 2 (Adoption)**. **Lloyd** clarified the committee's pillar alignment: * **Primary focus:** Pillar 3 (Governance) * **Secondary focus:** Pillar 4 (Community) * **Potential contribution:** Pillar 2 (Adoption) — only loosely linked The 2030 Vision language in the template is intentionally generic and can be read through multiple lenses. The committee should **rewrite the alignment text in their own voice**, with the **DRep audience as primary** and **vendors seeking funding as secondary**, and de-emphasize the adoption pillar. Simo reminded the group that several headers in the document are still copy-pasted from the Civics template and need to be updated to reflect Budget Committee KPIs. Lloyd asked Simo to pull the existing committee metrics from **Apollo** rather than reinventing them, since the committee is currently meeting those metrics. *** ### 8. Geographic Sensitivity for Travel **Kristijan Kowalsky** raised event budgeting: * Some 2026 events (e.g., Cardano Summit in Singapore in October) are optional and located in expensive regions. * Suggested following the prior approach Kyle and Sam used — **split travel by region** (US members cover US events, EU members cover EU events) so that no single member travels globally to every event. Lloyd agreed: as an international organization with members worldwide, geographic sensitivity should be the default for travel budgeting. *** ### 9. Ecclesia Platform Demo and Feedback Simo demonstrated the in-development Ecclesia proposal submission and viewing flow, including: * **Proposer-side flow:** wallet connect → proposal overview → strategic alignment (pillars/KPIs) → proposer details → work package details (objectives, milestones, budget per work package) → admin questions → legal/treasury/donation acknowledgements. * **Reader-side flow:** key details, budget summary (totalled across work packages), per-work-package budget line items, milestones, admin/audit/supporting information sections. * All sections are mapped to match the design. #### 9.1 Supporting Documentation Placement — Issue Raised **Kriss Baird** flagged that **additional supporting documentation** is currently rendered at the **bottom** of each proposal and at the very end overall. This contradicts a prior committee decision (early February — when Rita was present) that supporting materials should be **front and center near the top** of the proposal, directly under Key Details, so DReps actually consume them. **Discussion:** * **Nico** pushed back, concerned that prominent placement of supporting docs would let teams substitute pretty PDFs for substantive proposal content (a "popularity contest"). * **Kriss** countered that burying meaningful, well-prepared supplementary materials defeats their purpose, and that a polished supporting document is often the team's **primary** material. * **Lloyd** confirmed the prior decision: there should be a **Supporting Documentation block under Key Details** at the top of the proposal. Per-work-package attachments (e.g., a YouTube video specific to a milestone) can remain at the bottom of each work package. **Action:** Simo will work with the developers to add a **Supporting Documentation section under Key Details** at the top of the proposal view. #### 9.2 "Hydra Voting" Stability Question **Kristijan** raised a concern about the platform header reading "Intersect Hydra Voting": * He has heard from reliable sources that **Hydra is not currently stable**, with workarounds existing but unverified fixes. * As administrators, the committee needs assurance that the underlying infrastructure is stable before the platform goes live. Simo clarified that the committee branded it "Hydra Voting" because it is neither pure off-chain nor pure on-chain voting, but he did not have a definitive stability answer in the call. **Action:** Simo to follow up on Hydra stability and report back. #### 9.3 Translation Approach **Kristijan** asked whether the platform supports localized menus (Japanese, Spanish) — he saw no language dropdown. * Simo: localization is not currently in the requirements; users can use browser-based translation (e.g., "translate to Japanese" works on the page). * Lloyd: APIs exist that would allow individual proposal data to be pulled and translated. * **Kriss** recommended consulting **BTF**, the subject-matter expert who built the existing Catalyst and Intersect Japanese translation tooling, and noted **Tai Chi** can help facilitate. #### 9.4 Versioning and Withdrawal Simo confirmed all proposals will be **versioned** (previous versions viewable), and admins can **withdraw** a proposal with a recorded reason. *** ### 10. Motion — Release Budget Template Publicly This Week **Nico** raised a motion to **release the budget proposal template to the public this week**, given the info action is now over the threshold. * **Motion:** Release the budget template publicly this week. * **Mover:** Nicolas Cerny * **Second:** Megan Hess **Discussion:** * **Kristijan:** Confirmed it is the same template now in the tool. Suggested releasing with a "final draft" disclaimer. * **Kriss Baird:** Noted he would have preferred to review a clean version first. Initially considered abstaining, but referenced Simo's prior template (shared by Nico in chat) as sufficient comfort. Kriss did, however, raise a separate concern that the template asks each proposer to **set their own ADA rate** — he believed the committee had agreed to provide either a range or specific guidance. * Lloyd clarified: a **rate range will be provided when the proposal goes live**; the template is currently a structural template for proposers to begin drafting against. Kriss noted he would still abstain on that specific point. * **Format:** Released as a Google Doc copy of the structure currently used internally (similar to the Civics committee's released format) — pillars, work packages, budget summary — stripped of internal data. Distributed via Intersect comms channels. #### Roll Call Vote | Member | Vote | | ---------------------------- | ------------------------------ | | Dynamic Strategies (Dimitri) | Yes | | Eric Helms (SCATDAO) | Yes | | Jose Velazquez | Yes | | Kriss Baird | Abstain (re: ADA rate setting) | | Kristijan Kowalsky | Yes | | Megan Hess | Yes | | Nicolas Cerny | Yes | **Result:** **Motion passes** with one noted abstention. **Lloyd's commitment:** Publish the template this week and **include a note in the comms that the ADA rate guidance will be set later in the process**, so proposers don't go off and price their own asks inconsistently. *** ### 11. Homework Before Wednesday's Session * Add substantive details and feedback to the **Committee Budget Ask document** — particularly Section 5.3 (Treasury Transparency). * Designate a **champion for Initiative 3** (Treasury Transparency) and write up outcomes/deliverables. * Confirm X-Spaces / Meet-the-Committee date selection (April 7 or April 14) in Discord. *** ### 12. Action Items | Action | Owner | Notes | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Add details and feedback to Committee Budget Ask document | All committee members | Due before Wednesday's working session | | Update Strategic Alignment / KPIs in budget ask document with Budget Committee–specific language | Simo | Replace Civics-template copy; pull metrics from Apollo | | Designate champion for Treasury Transparency Initiative and write outcomes/deliverables | Megan / Committee | Original sponsor was Megan | | Draft DRep participation **research** language under Section 5.3 | Dynamic Strategies (Dimitri) | Research only, not direct DRep funding | | Add Supporting Documentation block under Key Details in Ecclesia proposal view | Simo / Ecclesia developers | Move per-prior-decision; per-work-package attachments stay at bottom | | Confirm Hydra voting stability and report back to committee | Simo | Raised by Kristijan; needed before go-live | | Engage BTF (with Tai Chi facilitation) on Japanese/Spanish translation tooling for Ecclesia | Simo / Lloyd | BTF built existing Catalyst translation tooling | | Publish budget proposal template to public via Intersect comms this week | Lloyd | Include note that ADA rate guidance will be set later | | Confirm X-Spaces / Meet-the-Committee date (April 7 or April 14) and committee representatives | Simo / Megan / Nico | Coordinate via Discord | | Join ISC call following this meeting to present budget to Board | Megan / Lloyd / Nico | Immediately after this meeting | | Continue video production rollout (first video publishing shortly) | Lloyd | Aligned with info action passing | *** ### 13. Adjournment Lloyd thanked the committee for the productive discussion and confirmed the next meeting on Wednesday for continued refinement of the budget ask document. **Headline outcomes:** * **2026 Budget Process Info Action passed the >50% threshold** (\~3.1B ADA Yes), 13 days remaining. * **Motion passed** to release the budget proposal template publicly this week, with one noted abstention on the ADA rate setting question. * Committee Budget Ask document advanced to Board review; Wednesday session will refine Treasury Transparency Initiative content. * Ecclesia platform demo surfaced a documentation-placement fix and open questions on Hydra stability and translation. Meeting adjourned at **01:06:20**. --- # 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-23rd-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.