Meeting Minutes 04/23/2025

Attendees:

Name	Attendance	Role	Voting Seat (Y/N)
Simon F.	Yes	Interim Chair	Y
Terence ‘Tex’ McCutcheon	Yes	Interim Secretary	N
Jack Briggs	No	Secretary	N
Laura M.	Yes	Member - Cardano Foundation	Y
Nathan A.	Yes	Member - EMURGO	Y
Wes P.	Yes	Member - Rare Network	Y
Martin M.	Yes	Member	Y
Vaibhav (Gintama)	Yes	Member	Y
Mubarak O.	Yes	Member	Y
Tim H.	Yes	Member	Y
Rand M.	Yes	SME - Rare Network	N
Natalia	Yes	SME	N
John G.	Yes	SME	N
Juan S.	Yes	SME	N
Jose I.	No	SME - ADA Solar	N

Other Guests:

• Thiago Nunes

Intros/COI

Simon: Simon 'Seomon' Fleck: Interim GMC Chair, Cardano After Dark co-founder, ODIN member Laura: Laura Mattiucci, Director Marketing and Comms at CF Nate: Nate Acton, VP of Global Marketing at EMURGO Wes: TBD Martin: TBD Vaibhav: Voting member of bootstrap growth and marketing committee. Voluntary Part of Various Working groups in intersect. Mubarak: AKA Kit Willow: Voting member of the Growth and Marketing Committee. Community member Tim: Tim Harrison, EVP Community & Ecosystem, Input | Output Rand: TBD Natalia: ADALINK, Interim GMC Non-Voting Member, CEO of AdaLink John: TBD Juan: TBD Jose: TBD Jack: TBD Tex: Open Source Program Manager (Intersect), OSC Secretary, Committee Liaison

Agenda 4.23.25

• Proposal review for inclusion in GMC Budget Proposal

Decisions/Actions

• Multiple votes held during the meeting.

Topic	Discussion	Action Items
Meeting Start and Agenda Setting	JB and Terence McCutcheon opened the meeting, noting the planned two and a half hour duration. The primary focus was set as adjusting the GMC budget proposal or preparing for consequences, due to community feedback regarding duplication with vendor proposals.	N/A
Process for Reviewing Proposals	Discussion around how to efficiently review the numerous proposals. Terence suggested focusing on proposals with existing vendors and deciding whether to include their budget within the GMC total or endorse them separately. A proposal sheet was shared.	Use the shared spreadsheet ("community review proposal review GMC") for tracking.
Clarification on Proposal Endorsement & Budget Inclusion	Terence clarified the meaning of "Yes" (counted inside GMC budget), "No" (not dealt with by GMC), and proposals outside the GMC budget that could still be endorsed.	N/A
Martin's Upcoming Proposal	Martin briefly mentioned he would be submitting a large proposal for marketing innovation (a movie project) after the meeting.	Martin to send the link after submission.
Cardano Killer Whales Show and Media Partnership Proposal	Initial discussion on community pushback and concerns about the proposer's ability to deliver. The idea was generally liked in principle but questions remained about the team's background and the proposal's priority.	Place in a "question mark" bucket for potential later review based on remaining budget.
Idea for Further Due Diligence on Promising Proposals	Tim suggested an output of the meeting could be to identify proposals of interest for follow-up sessions with project founders to learn more, especially for those proposals that couldn't be confidently endorsed immediately.	Identify proposals for potential follow-up sessions with proposers.
Alba Network Proposal (Node Setup)	Discussed whether this infrastructure-focused proposal fit within the Growth and Marketing budget. Concerns raised about lack of direct growth/marketing KPIs and the precedent of funding regional/country-specific initiatives. Juan Sierra provided context on the project's aims and current operations.	Place in a "question mark" bucket. Gintama suggested it fits better under MCC.
Voting Process for Proposals	Decided to use the chat for voting (Yes/No). Terence would count only the votes from designated voting members. Simon clarified the chair's role in voting based on committee size.	Conduct votes in the chat by typing proposal name and "Yes" or "No".
Cryptofluency Proposal	Reviewed by Martin, who highlighted the proposer's credibility and the proposal's aim to create standardized content for onboarding newcomers. Gnobudy John also noted the proposer's competence.	Vote conducted (majority No).
Business Lead Generation on Cardano Proposal	Gnobudy John expressed concerns about the proposal requesting more funds without demonstrating the success of their existing platform. Oladimeji Mubarak questioned the lack of a sustainability model. Simon supported it as utilizing an existing platform.	Vote conducted. Oladimeji Mubarak leaned towards "No" due to sustainability concerns. Simon voted "Yes".
Greek Cardano Embassy Proposal	Wes felt it was too soon for a physical hub, citing high costs for rent and staff without sufficient scale or a legitimate organizational structure behind it. Concerns about setting a precedent for funding similar initiatives in every country.	Vote conducted (majority No).
Ollie AI Tutor (Olympus Insights) Proposal	Tim reviewed the proposal, found the project interesting, but felt the proposal lacked clarity and the requested amount was high. Gnobudy John agreed, despite acknowledging the team's past delivery on Catalyst.	Vote conducted (majority No).
Unveiling the first unified global events marketing strategy for Cardano	Gintama felt the budget for events and sponsorships was too high, especially given the overall NCL budget situation. Nathaniel Acton and Wes Parkinson defended the budget as reflecting actual costs and necessary to compete with other L1s, highlighting the reduced scope from initial plans. Laura Mattiucci, Safa Morgan, and Wes Parkinson declared conflict of interest and abstained from voting.	Vote conducted. Attendees with conflict of interest abstained.
Amplify Cardano Community Led Event Funds by Rare Network	Simon and Tim supported this proposal to provide funding for community-led events, emphasizing the need for community accountability and clear processes. Discussion on coordination with GMC and DREPs.	Vote conducted (majority Yes). Terence to track votes in the main sheet.
Amplify Cardano Community Led Marketing Fund by Rare Network	Presented as very similar to the events fund but for marketing campaigns with different KPIs and min/max asks. Wes clarified it's for community members to market their own projects or Cardano generally. Tim supported it as providing funding for projects to tell their story, acknowledging the administrative role of Rare. Gnobudy John highlighted the risk of trusting a private company with grant administration, emphasizing the need for checks and balances.	Vote conducted (majority Yes).
Web 3 Festival Music Food and Blockchain Onboarding Proposal	Laura found the idea good but expensive. Wes described it as a quarter-million-dollar ask for a wine festival integrating Cardano tech, noting the proposers lacked large-scale event production history.	Vote conducted (majority No).
Frac Latin America RWA Franchise Model Proposal	Tim found the proposal comprehensive and ambitious but outside the GMC's remit. Gnobudy John deferred to Tim's assessment. Terence noted this proposal was removed from his reduced list.	Vote conducted (majority No).
Cardano Summit 2025 and Regional Tech Events Proposal	Oladimeji Mubarak reviewed this CF proposal, finding it good but suggesting more impartiality in naming specific entities for regional events. Laura noted the urgency and existing relationships driving the specific choices. Gintama suggested a Plan B with reduced scope/budget in case of NCL funding issues and inquired about last year's side event costs. Oladimeji Mubarak confirmed the proposal is a "Yes" from him.	Vote conducted (majority Yes).
Communication: Communicating the future with building block by block	Tim supported investing in PR but felt the amount was high, suggesting milestones and assessing results before committing the full spend. Simon found the price reasonable and the team capable. Gintama felt prices should be negotiated with vendors. Terence clarified funding is milestone-based and contracts can be negotiated.	Vote conducted (majority Yes with caveats about negotiation/milestones).
Decoding the future Strategic market intelligence for the Cardano ecosystem	Oladimeji Mubarak found the proposal good on paper but lacking in detail on deliverability and sustainability model, leaning towards abstain. JB and Gnobudy John noted the overlap with another market research proposal (Scribe's) and suggested comparing them. Gintama emphasized negotiating prices and considering DRep votes on GovTools.	Discussion ongoing, suggestion to compare with Scribe's market research proposal. Put in "question mark" bucket.
Bridging Knowledge and Innovation, the ultimate Cardano video series	Nate explained this was an Emergo proposal for content creation, originally under GMC scope but needing to be submitted as a vendor proposal. He abstained due to conflict of interest.	Vote conducted (majority No/Question Mark implied as needing resubmission as vendor proposal).
2025 Marketing Program Management Reporting and Measurement	Wes supported this large Scribe proposal as needed but wanted clarity on hours and pay rates for the team. JB explained it's a fixed fee, likely a loss for Scribe initially, but crucial for program accountability and high-level execution. The scope can be adjusted based on funded workstreams.	Vote conducted (majority Yes). Clarification on fixed fee vs hourly rate provided.
2025 Market Research Testing and Strategic Planning	Wes supported this Scribe proposal, agreeing it should be compared to the Waxman proposal. JB confirmed this was the market research bucket, competitive with Waxman, and suggested agencies could pitch against each other if there's no clear winner.	Agreed to compare with Waxman's proposal.
Global Brand Strategy, Creative Campaign and Global Creative Assets	Wes supported this Scribe proposal, again seeking clarity on hourly rates/scope, understanding it's a fixed fee. JB offered to share a rate card if the proposal moves forward. Gintama asked about overlap with partnership strategy; JB clarified ideally workstreams ladder up to brand strategy.	Vote conducted (majority Yes with caveats on scope/price clarification).
Business growth and marketing infrastructure for Cardano (Adalink)	Laura found it too expensive and felt it fit better under Product or Community Grants if building a platform. Natalia (Adalink) argued it fit multiple workstreams (Community, Social Media, Education) and served as a tool for marketers. Discussion on placing it in Community Grants or Management workstreams.	Discussion ongoing, suggestion to split the proposal or consider for Community Grants.
Grassroots (Meetings about Meetings) Proposal	Wes, Laura, and Nathaniel found this proposal vague with no clear success metrics and potential overlap with community events. Wes humorously described it as paying someone to have meetings about meetings.	Vote conducted (majority No).
Cardano Ecosystem Pavilions at Exhibitions (Discover Cardano)	Tim viewed this as a good candidate for discretionary community event funding at a smaller scale, identifying conferences not in larger proposals. Wes supported the objective but felt the ask was too high for the timeframe (end of 2025), suggesting reducing it to fund one conference takeover as a trial. Gintama suggested collaboration with the unified events marketing proposal.	Discussion ongoing, suggestion to reduce budget to ~100K for one event trial. Put in "question mark" bucket.
Rebuilding relationships and establishing a robust foundation for Cardano in Japan (Phoenix 2.0)	Gintama felt the name suggested it belonged to MCC, not GMC, and was outside the scope. Terence noted it was recently added and seemed more like research. Tim felt strong Japan-focused proposals should go through direct submission rather than being wrapped into GMC. Gnobudy John agreed about the need for a Japan focus but felt this specific proposal should be reassessed in a different context later, possibly within a dedicated Japan-focused working group.	Vote conducted (majority No). Suggested it fits better under MCC or as research.
Short form video marketing	Terence highlighted this proposal's small budget and clear output (90 videos over 45 weeks). Gnobudy John liked the proposer's persistence (multiple Catalyst submissions) and the clear deliverables/cost per video, seeing it as a worthwhile risk for growth/advertising. Tim and Wes suggested it was a prime candidate for a social/community fund.	Vote conducted (majority Yes). Recommended placing in the social media or community fund bucket.
Discussion on Waxman vs Scribe for Research Workstream	Discussion on whether to fund both Waxman and Scribe for the research workstream (each asking for ~$1M, workstream budget is ~$1M) or choose one. Concerns about splitting the budget leading to fragmented work. Gnobudy John strongly favored giving the full amount to one entity to ensure coherence and avoid alienating proposers. Laura and Wes leaned towards Waxman for strategic research and Scribe for brand/program management. GovTool polls showed both trending "No".	Defer final decision. Everyone to review both proposals for comparison before a final decision is made.
Impact of Decisions on Overall GMC Budget and DRep Voting	Terence emphasized that not adjusting the GMC budget to reflect endorsed individual proposals would likely result in the entire GMC proposal being declined by DReps due to perceived duplication. The process requires deducting costs of endorsed proposals from the GMC budget request. Laura highlighted the confusion among DReps about the overlap. Wes clarified the initial intent was to show defined workstreams and budgets, then allocate proposals, but this was misinterpreted.	Adjust the GMC budget proposal by deducting the amounts of endorsed individual proposals per workstream.
Clarity on Remaining Budget and Unfunded Workstreams	Discussed that remaining funds in workstreams without endorsed proposals would stay in the GMC budget request, to be decided upon later through IP. Identified workstreams with remaining/unallocated funds (Events, Product Marketing, Community Management, Social Media).	Ensure the revised GMC budget clearly shows remaining funds in workstreams without endorsed proposals.
Finalizing Budget Adjustments and Next Steps	Terence stressed the urgency of updating the proposal before the GovTool snapshot (within 24 hours) and the unlikelihood of DRep review time given the short notice if significant changes are made. The internal budget task force will take a snapshot. Intersect may need to advocate for the revised proposal. Gnobudy John questioned the significance of current low-participation GovTool polls on proposal outcomes, finding it perverse. Gintama calculated the remaining budget after proposed reductions.	Work urgently to finalize budget adjustments and update the GMC proposal. Terence to post answers/updates as available. Gintama and Gnobudy John offered to help.
USD vs ADA Valuation	Discussion on the inconsistency of proposals using different ADA/USD valuation rates. Wes offered to update their proposal using a 50-cent ADA valuation for clarity.	Proposers to update proposals to use a consistent ADA/USD valuation (e.g., 50 cents) for clarity.
Allocation of Specific Proposals to Workstreams	Gintama provided input on correctly assigning endorsed proposals to specific workstreams based on their focus (e.g., PR, Global Branding, Research, Partnership).	Update the spreadsheet/proposal with correct workstream allocations for endorsed proposals.