> 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/september-14th-2026-budget-comm-minutes.md). # September 14th, 2026 Budget Comm Minutes **Budget Committee Weekly Meeting — September 14th, 2026** **Date:** September 14, 2026\ **Time:** 13:00 UTC **Attendees:** Megan Hess (Chair), Kristijan Kowalsky (Vice Chair), Eric Helms (SCATDAO), Fanny Wijaya, Nicolas Cerny, Rodrigo Pacini, Christina Gianelloni (SME), Lorenzo Bruno (Acting Secretary) **Quorum:** Confirmed ### 1. Opening Lorenzo Bruno opened the meeting and reviewed the agenda, which included committee membership, Q4 planning, improvements to the budget process framework, and any other business. The committee briefly discussed the continued absence of Otavio and Jose Velasquez. It was agreed to review attendance records and the relevant committee member replacement/removal policy before deciding whether any further action is required. ### 2. Q3 Review The committee reviewed its Q3 commitments and achievements in preparation for the upcoming quarterly review. The retrospective of the 2026 Budget Process was confirmed as completed, with survey findings available for reference. Members also noted that the committee had: * Supported the submission of the 11 Treasury Withdrawal Governance Actions. * Provided detailed feedback on the Cardano 2030 KPI framework. * Begun discussions on the next budget cycle and potential improvements. * Completed the secretary handover following the previous secretary stepping down. The committee noted that formal recommendations for the future budget process were still in progress and would continue into Q4. ### 3. Q4 Priorities The committee discussed its potential priorities for Q4. The primary focus will be supporting the definition of the next budget cycle, including closer alignment with the Ecosystem Funding Working Group and broader work on funding domains, strategic priorities, and the structure of the 2027 process. Members also discussed the need to better define the Budget Committee's own strategy, remit, and areas where it can provide meaningful impact. Potential Q4 priorities identified included: * Supporting the definition of the 2027 Budget Process. * Working more closely with the Ecosystem Funding Working Group. * Defining the Budget Committee's strategy and role for the next funding cycle. * Reviewing Intersect's administration of funded proposals and providing feedback. * Exploring stronger accountability mechanisms for treasury-funded initiatives. The committee agreed that the Q4 plan remains a starting point and can be refined further. ### 4. Accountability for Funded Proposals A significant part of the discussion focused on accountability for treasury-funded proposals. Members raised concerns that the current ecosystem lacks a sufficiently robust mechanism for independently assessing whether funded initiatives are delivering what they committed to and whether those deliverables are creating the intended impact. The discussion distinguished between verifying that contractual milestones have technically been completed and evaluating whether those milestones provide meaningful value or contribute toward the strategic KPIs originally referenced by the proposal. Members supported stronger checks and balances around: * Deliverables and milestone completion. * Evidence supporting milestone approval. * Progress against committed KPIs. * Transparency of the review and verification process. * Demonstrating actual impact beyond self-reported progress. The committee agreed that this is an area where further work and clearer accountability could significantly strengthen future budget processes. ### 5. Review of Intersect Administration Members discussed the current administration and milestone assurance process used for funded proposals. Some members expressed concern that it is difficult for external observers to understand how milestone decisions are made and to reconstruct the reasoning behind approvals or rejections. The committee discussed the potential value of reviewing the administration process in more detail and providing structured feedback on areas that could be improved, particularly around transparency, evidence, and the visibility of delivery assurance. It was suggested that the Chair and Vice Chair raise relevant concerns through the ISC so that the appropriate Intersect teams can respond. The committee also discussed the idea of creating regular sessions where funded proposers could publicly present completed milestones and progress, increasing community visibility and providing an opportunity for broader feedback. ### 6. Ownership and Resourcing Members discussed the practical challenges of taking on additional work through volunteer committees and working groups. There was broad recognition that meaningful proposal review, KPI verification, accountability, and process design require significant expertise and time and cannot rely indefinitely on unpaid volunteer contributions. Members discussed the possibility of creating dedicated workstreams or working groups with clearly defined deliverables and appropriate funding. It was also noted that stronger delegated authority or sponsorship may be needed from the Board or wider ecosystem stakeholders if the committee is expected to take ownership of more substantial responsibilities. ### 7. Improving the Budget Process Framework The committee discussed broader gaps that could be addressed in future budget cycles. Members highlighted the need for stronger proposal evaluation before funding decisions are made, as well as ongoing oversight after proposals receive treasury funding. The committee discussed the potential need for a more neutral and structured body capable of reviewing proposals, deliverables, KPIs, and impact while appropriately managing conflicts of interest. Members acknowledged that this role may not sit entirely within Intersect or the Budget Committee and may require wider ecosystem agreement. The committee agreed to continue this discussion at a future meeting. ### 8. Actions and Next Steps * Review attendance records for inactive committee members and the applicable replacement/removal policy. * Finalize the Q3 achievements and Q4 planning slide. * Continue developing the Q4 plan, particularly around the 2027 Budget Process. * Strengthen coordination with the Ecosystem Funding Working Group. * Consider reviewing Intersect's administration and milestone assurance process and provide feedback. * Raise relevant administration and accountability concerns through the ISC. * Continue discussion on stronger proposal evaluation, KPI tracking, and post-funding accountability. * Explore whether dedicated, funded workstreams are needed for this work. * Continue discussion on a potential neutral oversight or accountability function for treasury-funded proposals. --- # 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/september-14th-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.