> 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/october-5th-2026-budget-comm-minutes.md). # October 5th, 2026 Budget Comm Minutes **Budget Committee Weekly Meeting — October 5th, 2026** **Date:** October 5, 2026\ **Time:** 13:00 UTC **Attendees:** Megan Hess (Chair), Eric Helms (SCATDAO), Fanny Wijaya, Nicolas Cerny, Rodrigo Pacini, Christina Gianelloni (SME), Simo Simovic (Acting Secretary) **Quorum:** Confirmed (4 of 8 voting members present) ### 1. Opening Simo Simovic opened the meeting and confirmed quorum. The main agenda items were the status of two inactive committee members, an update on the 2027 Budget Process, and discussion on potential Q4 work around treasury transparency, proposal monitoring, and the use of domain experts in future budget processes. ### 2. Inactive Committee Members The committee reviewed the status of Otavio Lima and Jose Velasquez, who had not attended Budget Committee meetings during the previous two months. The relevant dismissal and replacement policy was reviewed. It was noted that committee members may be subject to dismissal where attendance or participation falls below the thresholds defined in the policy. A motion was raised to dismiss both members and was seconded by the Chair. Because the affected members were not present, the committee agreed to follow the policy requirement to notify them and provide an opportunity to respond before a formal vote is held. It was also clarified that removing the two members would leave the committee with eight voting members, so immediate replacement would not be required under the current policy. ### 3. 2027 Budget Process Update An update was provided on ongoing discussions regarding the 2027 Budget Process. Intersect is continuing discussions with major ecosystem stakeholders to determine the overall direction and whether a domain- or category-based approach should be developed further. The current thinking is to introduce more structure into treasury spending by connecting domains or categories with clear goals and KPIs. Before developing the detailed process, the approach will need to be socialized with DReps and other major stakeholders to understand whether there is sufficient support to proceed. Further updates are expected as these discussions progress. ### 4. Treasury Transparency and Monitoring The committee discussed a potential Q4 initiative to improve visibility into the status and progress of treasury-funded initiatives. Members noted that information on funded proposals is currently spread across multiple platforms and sources, particularly for projects that are not administered through Intersect. A proposal was made to consolidate information on how different Treasury Withdrawals are being monitored, including where progress reports, milestone information, and funding data can be found. The initial idea is to create a structured overview that could potentially be published as a blog post or other public resource, making it easier for the community to understand the status of funded initiatives. Nicolas Cerny agreed to prepare an initial outline, with Christina Gianelloni supporting the work. ### 5. Domain Experts and Conflicts of Interest The committee discussed the potential use of domain experts within a more structured 2027 Budget Process. Members acknowledged that specialist expertise could reduce the burden on DReps and improve the quality of proposal assessment. However, concerns were raised around conflicts of interest, particularly where the most knowledgeable subject matter experts may also be involved in companies or projects seeking treasury funding. The committee agreed that strong safeguards would be required, including clear selection criteria, transparency, conflict-of-interest rules, and appropriate oversight mechanisms. Members emphasized that any system designed to filter, assess, or recommend proposals must maintain legitimacy and avoid creating the perception that a small group is controlling access to treasury funding. ### 6. Oversight and Risk Management The committee discussed the broader governance risks associated with a domain-based funding model. Members suggested that a useful starting point would be to identify the main risks associated with using domain experts or other intermediary assessment mechanisms before designing safeguards. Potential areas of concern include conflicts of interest, concentration of decision-making, lack of independence, and the possibility of expert recommendations unduly influencing DRep decisions. The committee agreed that some form of risk register or structured risk assessment could help guide future process design. ### 7. Actions and Next Steps * Prepare documentation showing the attendance history of Otavio Lima and Jose Velasquez. * Notify both members of the dismissal motion and provide them an opportunity to respond. * Hold the formal dismissal vote at the next committee meeting. * Continue stakeholder discussions on the proposed domain-based approach for the 2027 Budget Process. * Prepare an initial outline for consolidating treasury-funded proposal monitoring and transparency information. * Continue discussion on domain experts, conflicts of interest, and appropriate oversight mechanisms. * Consider developing a risk register for the proposed 2027 Budget Process structure. * Update and publish outstanding Budget Committee meeting minutes. --- # 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 by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the following URL with the `ask` and `goal` query parameters: ``` GET https://committees.docs.intersectmbo.org/intersect-budget-committee/committee-meeting-notes/2026-meeting-notes/budget-committee-weekly-meetings/october-5th-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 what the user is ultimately trying to achieve, the reason they need the answer. Sharing it helps GitBook give you a better, more relevant answer. A goal is most helpful when it describes the outcome the user wants rather than restating the question. For example, with `ask=how do I create an API token`, a goal like `automate deployments from our CI pipeline` lets GitBook tailor the answer to that use case. 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.