> 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/may-11th-2026-budget-comm-minutes.md). # May 11th, 2026 Budget Comm Minutes ### Budget Committee Weekly Meeting — May 11th, 2026 **Date:** May 11, 2026 **Time:** 09:00 EDT **Attendees:** Ahmed Kadiri, Eric Helms (SCATDAO), Fanny Wijaya, Jose Velazquez, Kristijan (Chris) Kowalsky, Lloyd Duhon (Secretary), Megan Hess (Chair Emeritus), Newman Lanier, Nicolas Cerny, Otávio Lima, Rodrigo Pacini, Seun Gbiri, Simo Simovic (Project Manager), Stephen Wood (Cardano Foundation), Terence "Tex" McCutcheon (Intersect staff / committee liaison), Wilco van de Burgwal **Quorum:** Confirmed. > **Context:** This is the **first meeting of the newly elected committee composition**. New members elected in April 2026 serve two-year terms (April 2026–April 2028); members from the October 2025 cycle are on an 18-month window. An **annual chair election** will be held at the **first meeting in June (June 1)**, with a recommendation to also elect a **vice chair**. The committee is mid-cycle: the final feedback and review window for proposals runs **May 8–May 22**. *** ### 1. Opening, Roster, and Election Cycle Lloyd opened the meeting at 9:05 EDT, welcomed the newly elected members (Stephen Wood, Fanny Wijaya, Rodrigo Pacini, and others), and confirmed quorum. He shared the updated committee member chart and walked through the governance calendar. * **Megan Hess** is now marked **Chair Emeritus** pending the chair election required in the first week of June. Megan remains eligible to run again. * Members elected **April 2026** hold **two-year terms** (April 2026–April 2028); members carrying an **October 2025** election date are on an **18-month re-election window**. * An **annual chair election** will be held in June. Lloyd recommended the committee also elect a **vice chair** so the chair has someone to act in their stead when needed. * New members were reminded to complete the onboarding work sent by email — straightforward but required. *** ### 2. Conflict of Interest Disclosures Tex McCutcheon proposed the committee adopt a standing **conflict-of-interest / disclosure practice** carried over from the OSC: each member records **name, position, organization, and any other COI or outside participation** in the minutes. Keeping disclosures on record up front keeps the committee informed of changes and, in most cases, removes the need to disclose a conflict individually at the time of a vote. Lloyd endorsed the practice and asked all members to submit theirs (via chat or verbally) during the meeting. Disclosures stated in this meeting: * **Nicolas Cerny** — Governance Lead at the Cardano Foundation; voting member and Chair of the Civics Committee; member of the ACE Alliance; Constitutional Committee member; Chair of Civics on the ISC. (Stated verbally; chat delivery was failing for Nico.) * **Stephen Wood** — Cardano Foundation (BFO). (Stated verbally; chat delivery failing.) > **Action:** Remaining members to record their COI disclosures (name, position, organization, any other COI) in the chat or to Lloyd so they can be added to the record. *** ### 3. Status of the Proposal Process Lloyd reported on where the process stands now that the initial submission window has closed. * The process is in **final feedback and review**, which began **May 8** and runs through **May 22**. * **69 proposals** are live — roughly a third of last year's volume (**\~194** proposals in the prior cycle, whittled down to \~96). * The **Treasury donation requirement** (a \~1,000 ADA / 100K-threshold deposit to submit) appears to have successfully filtered out the most frivolous submissions; remaining proposers signaled seriousness by paying to participate. * **Comments are sparse.** Most proposals have little or no feedback. Lloyd flagged that soliciting **DRep and community comments** on proposals is one of the most valuable things the committee can do for vendors right now, several of whom are earnestly seeking feedback. #### 3.1 The NCL Constraint Using the Civotas/CBOS Explorer (URL shared by Nico in the CBC internal channel), the committee reviewed the totals: * The 69 live proposals total roughly **351 million ADA** in requests. * Only about **76 million ADA** of room remains under the approved **Net Change Limit (NCL)** if currently-live items pass (Lloyd referenced \~80M / "a little less than 100M" earlier in discussion; \~76M is the working figure for remaining NCL headroom). * This reprises the committee's earlier NCL debate (Kristijan): even proposals that clear Ecclesia face the NCL as a second blocker. Options remain (a) DReps agree to raise the NCL, or (b) DReps approve a smaller volume of proposals. These are decisions for the DReps. #### 3.2 Draft (Unsubmitted) Proposals In response to Kristijan's question about proposals drafted but never submitted, Simo (who holds backend/admin access) noted there are many drafts, some duplicating live proposals. Several people contacted him after the window closed saying they had not submitted. Simo's position: the submission window is closed, proposers had at least four weeks (and could have submitted an unfinished draft and updated it later), and reopening is the committee's decision — but his personal recommendation is **not** to reopen. He offered to provide a count of drafts if useful. #### 3.3 Sub-Threshold Proposal Flag Simo flagged **one live proposal under the 100K ADA minimum threshold**. It is priced near a 0.26 ADA rate; at a higher rate it would clear 100K. By the committee's own rules the proposal should be withdrawn before voting, or the proposer asked to correct the figure. The committee can post an **official admin comment** asking them to adjust. No formal motion was taken; the committee discussed making proposers aware of the rule. *** ### 4. Discussion — How to Surface Quality Among 69 Proposals A substantial discussion (Stephen, Nico, Kristijan, Eric, Megan, Wilco, Rodrigo) centered on the core challenge: with no funded expert reviewers this cycle, how does quality rise to the top? #### 4.1 Don't Get Lost in Special Cases — Stephen Wood Stephen urged the committee not to relitigate individual malformed proposals — the rules and website are clear; follow the process and keep it efficient. He noted **quantity ≠ quality**: as in VC/startup deal flow, a very high drop-off rate is normal and expected. The harder question: how does the committee ensure good proposals rise so voters aren't forced to audit all 69 (or, at scale, thousands)? #### 4.2 The Review Funding Gap — Nico Per the approved info action, the process is now in **Stage 2 (review and approval)**, but **no funding or experts were earmarked** for reviews — a known weakness. The committee cannot ask committees like the TSC to review \~50 proposals in 11 days; reviews were never agreed with them. Nico cautioned that more technical proposals can be written to **obfuscate**, and that the committee running the process should be wary of itself opining on which proposals are "good" or "bad." #### 4.3 Process vs. Resources — Kristijan Kristijan, drawing on running an EU awards selection committee, agreed the committee is **not tooled, selected, or funded** to act as auditors/judges, and that a proper review body would need DRep approval, multi-cycle funding, vetting and oversight. He emphasized this is the **Cardano** Budget Committee (community members), not an Intersect administrative body — the committee arranges the process, it does not select winners. He warned of low voter turnout and the risk of important proposals failing, which may warrant a strong call to action. #### 4.4 Dividing the Work by Pillar / Committee Lloyd suggested using the **five pillars** to route proposals to the committees best suited to review them (e.g., Civics for the small number of governance/Pillar 3 proposals; TSC/OSC for infrastructure; Growth & Marketing for adoption/utility). Caveats: no funding, limited committee time, and it was never formally agreed with those committees. Lloyd noted secretaries hold committee wallets and posting keys, so committees **can** post comments if they choose. #### 4.5 Official Committee Comments Must Be Voted Simo clarified the guidance for committee commenting: any comment posted on behalf of a committee is an **official statement** and **must be voted on** by that committee. Lloyd noted this can be done efficiently as a **bulk vote** — members compile proposed comments in a spreadsheet, the committee approves the batch, and Lloyd posts them. Nico reiterated the concern that the committee running the process commenting on merits is **problematic**. #### 4.6 Alternative Approaches Raised * **Nico:** Rather than judging, the committee could **amplify and support** proposals — hosting X Spaces, featuring proposals in blog posts — and push for **strategic alignment** and a near-term chair election. * **Eric Helms:** Assess proposers by **track record** — have they delivered on past commitments? This is not highly technical and yields strong signal. Lloyd noted he authored the original **Catalyst Risk Assessment (CRAP)** protocol, built on past-deliverables scoring, and that Catalyst milestone modules could be a quick source of delivery history. He offered to revisit it. * **Megan Hess:** Framing matters — providing **objective facts** about proposals (e.g., delivery history) is far more palatable than offering opinions, and is something she could support from a budget-committee perspective. *** ### 5. Future Model — Compensated Expert Reviews (TSC Work Package 3) The committee discussed the **TSC's proposal for compensated technical reviews** (Tex, Lloyd, Eric): * It sits in **TSC Work Package 3**, funds reviews for the **2027** budget cycle, and is **directed at core infrastructure** — it is a 2025 budget category, **not part of this round**. * Compensation: **$1,800 per review**, estimating \~3 reviews each, across **\~35 proposals** (Tex). Per-review base referenced elsewhere as **10,000 ADA pegged to USD** (e.g., $250 at \~0.25 ADA) — Tex noted $250 is small for the 1–6 hours a quality technical review takes; reviewers would assess report quality and **reports not up to par could be denied and unpaid**. * Lloyd praised the model: a **limited, vetted set of domain experts** reviewing a **limited set of proposals** — not a "trust the crowd" wide net. A good foundational experiment for 2027. * **Eric's caution:** Sourcing — who chooses the experts, and would they be people (e.g., IOHK-affiliated) who also submit proposals? Tex described likely contacts (long-standing core developers, IO partners acting in their own capacity, OSC maintainer-program contributors). Lloyd: the **TSC would issue a request, vet and select applicants**, and reviewers would need **COI declarations** — reviewers must have **no stake** in what they review. Eric flagged this as a potential **slippery slope** given the small community, but a useful start. Lloyd also noted the **Growth & Marketing committee** stepped back from submitting its own proposal this cycle to instead encourage and review proposals in its focus areas — possibly why **adoption & utility** has higher volume. He hopes both experiments (G\&M review approach and the TSC compensated-review model) bear fruit and get funded as building blocks for 2027. *** ### 6. Schedule and Cadence * The committee meets **twice weekly**: **Mondays** (mandatory voting meeting) and **Wednesdays** (working session). Attendance at the Wednesday working session is strongly encouraged. * The **annual chair election** (and recommended vice-chair election) will be held at the **first June meeting (June 1)** per Intersect policy. * The current process — originally scheduled for January and delayed — is being run now in a compressed window, concurrent with the transition to the new committee. *** ### 7. Action Items | Action | Owner | Notes | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------- | ------------------------------------------- | | Record COI disclosures (name, position, organization, other COI) | All members | Submit via chat or to Lloyd; add to record | | Encourage DReps and community members to review and comment on the 69 live proposals | All members | Final feedback window May 8–22 | | Compile delivery-history / track-record analysis against the 69 proposals (revisit CRAP + Catalyst milestone modules) | Lloyd | Bring to Wednesday (May 13) working session | | Confirm exact remaining NCL headroom vs. total requested (\~351M requested; \~76M NCL room) | Lloyd / Simo | For committee decision-making | | Provide count of drafted-but-unsubmitted proposals | Simo | If committee finds it useful | | Decide committee posture on the sub-100K-threshold proposal (admin comment vs. withdrawal) | Committee / Simo | Per minimum-threshold rule | | Decide as a committee how to handle low-quality ("junk") proposals if found | Committee | Agreed to decide collectively | | Prepare/structure official committee comments as a bulk vote (spreadsheet → approve → Lloyd posts) | Committee / Lloyd | Official comments must be voted | | Hold annual chair election (and consider vice-chair election) | Committee | First June meeting, June 1 | | New members to complete onboarding work | New members | Per email instructions | *** ### 8. Adjournment Lloyd closed the meeting at the top of the hour, ahead of the Intersect Steering Committee call. He welcomed the new members again and committed to assembling track-record/delivery information ahead of the **Wednesday, May 13 working session** to help surface quality among the 69 proposals. **Headline outcomes:** * **First meeting of the newly elected committee** — new April-2026 members seated for two-year terms; Megan Hess serving as Chair Emeritus pending the June chair election. * **Standing COI disclosure practice adopted** (carried over from OSC); Nico and Stephen disclosed verbally, others to follow. * **69 proposals live**, \~351M ADA requested against \~76M ADA of remaining NCL room — a fraction of last year's \~194 proposals; the Treasury-donation deposit filtered out frivolous submissions. * **Final feedback/review window runs May 8–22**; comments are sparse — soliciting DRep/community feedback is the committee's top near-term priority. * **Core debate:** with no funded reviewers this cycle, how to surface quality. Consensus leaned toward **objective, fact-based signals** (delivery track record) over the committee opining on merits, plus amplifying proposals (X Spaces, blog posts). * **2027 building blocks:** TSC's compensated expert-review model (Work Package 3) and Growth & Marketing's review-instead-of-submit approach seen as promising experiments. * **Sub-100K-threshold proposal** flagged for correction or withdrawal per committee rules. * **Chair (and possible vice-chair) election** set for the first June meeting (June 1). * **Next working session: Wednesday, May 13.** Meeting adjourned after **01:11:30**. --- # 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/may-11th-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.