March 2nd, 2026 Budget Comm Minutes
Budget Committee Weekly Meeting — March 2nd, 2026
Date: March 2, 2026 Time: 07:54 EST
Attendees:
Abbie Yeates, Colleen O'Beirne, Dynamic Strategies, Eric Helms (SCATDAO), Jose Velazquez, Ken-Erik Ølmheim, Kriss Baird, Kristijan Kowalsky, Lloyd Duhon (Secretary), Megan Hess (Chair), Nicolas Cerny, Otávio Lima, Randy Randy, Simo Simovic (Project Manager), Stephen Wood, Thomas Lindseth, Wilco van de Burgwal
Quorum: Confirmed.
1. Opening and Agenda
Lloyd opened the meeting and confirmed quorum. The primary objective was a final review and approval of the Budget Committee's budget asks and priorities for the 2026-2027 budget cycle. The committee would finalize the four work packages and vote to affirm them as the framework for moving forward to board approval and DRep presentation.
2. Budget Process Info Action (BPIA) — Board Submission Status
2.1 Board Approval Timeline
Simo reported the BPIA is scheduled for board approval this week to enable on-chain submission before the end of the current epoch (Thursday).
Submitting this week allows budget process kickoff in early April, whereas waiting until the next epoch would delay kickoff to mid-April.
The board has not yet approved the document due to capacity constraints from other urgent ecosystem topics.
Jack (interim director) is pushing the approval asynchronously and is expected to secure it this week.
3. Budget Committee Budget Asks and Priorities — Framework Review
3.1 Four Work Packages Approved
The committee reviewed and affirmed four primary work packages for the 2026-2027 budget cycle:
3.1.1 Facilitate Budget Process 2027
Includes retrospective workshops to improve the budget process.
Includes business-as-usual cost to run the budget process in the following year.
3.1.2 Budget Tooling Updates
Ecclesia tool improvements and refinements (open-source tool available post-cycle).
Updates to smart contracts for next year's budget process.
Potentially delivered as bounties rather than direct vendor contracts.
3.1.3 Financial Audit of Treasury Withdrawal
Audit scope: from treasury withdrawal to release of funds (delivery assurance function).
Operations/Delivery Assurance will own audit initiation; committee will receive and formally submit the report.
Third-party CPA firm engaged for the 2026 cycle.
Additional review by Reeve (financial audit tool) is being considered for on-chain attestation.
3.1.4 Treasury Transparency Initiative Pilot (TTIP)
Public tooling to provide cleaner querying of treasury and budget process information.
Open-source resources for Blockfrost, Oracle, explorers, and other community tools.
Educational learning resources will be explicitly added to support community understanding of the budget process.
3.2 Additional Initiative: Review Intersect Annual Financials
Kriss Baird raised the need to explicitly flag the committee's responsibility (per charter) to review Intersect's annual financial reports.
Added as a sticky note under the Financial Audit section.
A third-party CPA is currently working through Intersect's prior-year financials; report is expected soon.
3.3 Scope Clarification: Committee vs. Core Intersect
Not all items listed as budget priorities will necessarily fall under the budget committee budget.
Some items (e.g., running the process itself, certain tooling updates) may be funded through core Intersect operations, open source, or other initiatives.
The committee's role is to plant a flag that these items need funding and deserve priority, regardless of which funding stream ultimately supports them.
Expected direct committee funding: process retrospective, recommendations for improvement, and the TTIP pilot program.
3.4 NCL Constraint and Setting Future NCL
Nicolas Cerny noted that setting the future NCL (potentially as a percentage of treasury under the new constitution) did not receive sufficient attention in prior planning cycles.
Proposed adding explicit mention of NCL-setting methodology to the framework.
3.5 Open Budget Process Administration
Dynamic Strategies asked whether anyone can request to run the budget process.
Clarification: Anyone can run a budget process if they fund it. Amaru runs its own budget process. Intersect is a natural home for this process because it has the infrastructure, delivery assurance, and resources.
Intersect is bidding to be the administrator; however, individual entities or other candidates could bid to run parallel budget processes.
The NCL constrains all budget processes at the Cardano level, not just Intersect's.
3.6 Budget Proposal and Template Work
Simo noted the civics committee is developing a similar budget proposal template with short descriptions and connections to strategy pillars.
The budget committee will follow the same template approach to ensure its proposals are comparable to all other proposals submitted through the process.
Next steps: Committee and Simo will work with the executive team to determine which items should fall under budget committee vs. core Intersect budget, and will develop formal budget proposals for each initiative.
3.7 Expert Review and Proposal Evaluation Discussion
Nicolas Cerny suggested establishing an expert review body (not gatekeepers or decision makers, but evaluators) to help DReps assess dozens of proposals.
Lloyd cited the Technical Steering Committee (TSC) as an example of this model.
Dynamic Strategies proposed nominating expert DReps to conduct qualified assessments of proposals, potentially compensated from the submission fee.
Lloyd noted that for 2026, submission fees flow directly to treasury; fee-based compensation could be a 2027 improvement.
3.8 Expert DRep Compensation and Proposal Assessment
Dynamic Strategies suggested using part of the submission fee (500,000 ADA) to compensate expert DReps who provide qualified proposal assessments.
This would move toward DRep compensation for governance work, an idea well-received by the committee.
Recommendation: Flesh out this model as part of the 2027 process design.
4. Committee Vote — Budget Framework
4.1 Motion
Kriss Baird moved to close the collaboration document and advance the four-work-package framework as the committee's budget ask for 2026-2027.
Kristijan Kowalsky seconded the motion.
4.2 Amendment and Clarification
Megan Hess requested clarification on what approval means and what the next steps and binding nature of the commitments are.
Lloyd clarified:
The framework is subject to board and senior leadership team approval.
Some initiatives may be moved to core Intersect budget by the executive team.
Any approved items can be converted from a pillar/priority into a formal funding package to present to DReps as work packages under the committee's 2026-2027 budget ask.
Nicolas Cerny asked how conflicts would be handled if the committee and executives disagree on budget ownership.
Lloyd indicated this would be a negotiation; the committee can push back if a task exceeds available resources. Larger conflicts would require a discussion with senior leadership.
Kriss Baird also noted the education/learning resources piece should be more explicitly called out.
Lloyd requested Simo add a blue sticky note labeling "Learning Resources" alongside the TTIP pilot program.
4.3 Roll Call Vote
Eric Helms (SCATDAO)
Yes
Dynamic Strategies (Dimitri)
Yes
Jose Velazquez
Yes
Kriss Baird
Yes
Kristijan Kowalsky
Yes
Nicolas Cerny
Yes
Otávio Lima
Yes
Megan Hess
Yes
Result: Motion carries unanimously.
5. Treasury Withdrawal Strategy Discussion
5.1 Consolidation vs. Individual Withdrawals
Simo raised a discussion item (originally brought to Jack, the interim director) regarding how many treasury withdrawals to submit after the off-chain process.
Current plan: two consolidated Treasury Withdrawal Governance Actions (TWGAs) for all approved proposals.
Alternative consideration: revert to individual TWGAs for each approved proposal (as was done in prior cycles).
5.2 Rationale for Two-TWGA Approach
Prior DRep feedback indicated strong preference for consolidated withdrawals rather than 20-30 individual ones.
Consolidation simplifies DRep voting and avoids forcing DReps to evaluate multiple separate actions.
Two TWGAs allow the process to stay within the NCL constraint while collecting all approved proposals.
Consolidation enables the committee to manage constitutionality checks and ensure all proposals meet requirements before submission.
5.3 Risks of Individual Withdrawals
Nicolas Cerny noted a prior DRep poll showed individual proposals won by a thin margin, but if all bundling options were combined, they would have had a larger majority.
Each individual TWGA must allocate specific audit costs, creating compliance complexity.
If Intersect submits 20-30 TWGAs, it becomes a significant operational burden and requires many deposit submissions.
Individual withdrawals eliminate the consolidation phase, shifting the burden of managing constitutionality and NCL compliance onto the Cardano Constitutional Committee.
5.4 Proposal Completeness and Auditor Requirements
Simo raised a concern: the template asks for a third-party auditor name, but what happens if a proposal is submitted without one?
Nicolas clarified: proposals available for voting must be constitutionally confirmed already; Intersect should not have to chase proposals for missing information.
Intersect's role is to consolidate and ensure all information is present before submitting TWGAs.
5.5 Committee Consensus
Lloyd reiterated that the DREPs interviewed (representing 30-40% of stake) overwhelmingly support the two-TWGA consolidation approach.
No significant demand to revert to individual withdrawals.
The two-TWGA structure is what has been shared and discussed with DReps in working sessions; changing it late would be risky.
Decision: Stick with the two-TWGA consolidation approach. DReps can reject it if they choose, but the current plan will be presented for on-chain voting.
6. Action Items
Finalize and submit BPIA to board for approval
Simo / Lloyd
Targeting approval this week for on-chain submission before epoch end
Present budget committee budget asks to Intersect Committee (IC)
Lloyd / Simo
To be presented at IC meeting this week following committee approval
Work with executive team to determine budget ownership (committee vs. core)
Simo / Lloyd
Clarify which initiatives fall under committee vs. Intersect core budget
Develop formal budget proposals for each approved initiative
Simo / Committee
Following executive team alignment; use civics committee template as reference
Add blue sticky for "Learning Resources" to TTIP initiative
Simo
Explicit call-out for educational materials
Check on Reeve financial attestation status
Lloyd
Follow up with Nick regarding on-chain financial statement attestation
Update committee member contact information
Lloyd
Update invite list with Kriss Baird's new email address from CF
7. Parking Lot and Administrative Notes
7.1 Personnel Update
Kriss Baird announced his transition from Input Output to Cardano Foundation.
His last day at IO was Friday; he has a new email address (to be provided).
The Catalyst team has transferred to CF, currently in onboarding.
Requested that the committee hold off on public announcements until he makes his own announcement.
8. Adjournment
Lloyd thanked the committee for their time and commitment to advancing the budget process. He acknowledged the successful unanimous vote on the budget framework and noted the productive discussion around treasury withdrawal strategy.
Next steps:
Wednesday working session to finalize outstanding details and develop formal budget proposals.
Present budget framework to IC and work with executive team on budget allocation.
Move BPIA to final board approval for on-chain submission.
Prepare budget proposals for DRep presentation alongside process execution.
Meeting adjourned at 01:02:56.
Last updated