# December 1st, 2025 Budget Comm Minutes

## **Budget Committee Weekly Meeting — December 1st, 2025**

**Date:** December 1, 2025\
**Time:** 07:47 EST (weekly Budget Committee call)

**Attendance:**

* **Committee Members (voting):**
  * Kris Kowalski – Chair
  * Megan Hess – Vice Chair
  * Kriss Baird
  * Murasaki
  * Nico Cerny
  * Rita Mistry
* **Committee Support / Staff:**
  * Lloyd Duhon – Budget Secretary
  * Simo Simovic – Project Manager, Budget Process
* **Executive Leadership / Guests:**
  * Jack Briggs – Interim Executive Director, Intersect

**Quorum:** Confirmed (Megan, Murasaki, Kris K, Nico, Kriss B, and Rita present as voting members).

***

### **1. Opening and Context**

* Jack opened with a recap and context after an **intense 2–3 week period**, including:
  * The **mainnet incident** (\~10 days prior).
  * Rapid drafting and publication of the **Critical Integrations Budget Info Action**.
* The critical integrations proposal was a **joint effort** involving:
  * Founding entities
  * Intersect
  * Midnight
  * Governance input from Nico on constitutional alignment.

***

### **2. Critical Integrations Budget Info Action – Status Update**

#### 2.1 Process and Outcome

* Following the mainnet incident, **Jack and Murasaki** coordinated quickly to frame a **Critical Integrations Budget Info Action** addressing ecosystem needs (e.g., tier-one infrastructure, integrations).
* A call with **Charles** and intense drafting work led to:
  * The **budget info action published on Thursday** (prior week).
  * The proposal becoming the **most popular budget info action to date** in terms of DRep engagement and support.
* Result:
  * The info action is **passing the approval threshold**.
  * There are **a few “no” votes** with substantive rationale; Jack and Murasaki are reviewing these carefully to address them in the upcoming **Treasury Withdrawal governance action**.

#### 2.2 Next Steps – Withdrawal Action

* A **Treasury Withdrawal (TW)** governance action will follow, in parallel with:
  * Responding to concerns raised in “no” votes.
  * Aligning timing and constitutional requirements.

***

### **3. Net Change Limit Extension Governance Action (Hosky & CC)**

#### 3.1 Overview

* Over the weekend, a **governance action proposed by Hosky and some CC members** was published to:
  * **Extend the current Net Change Limit (NCL) by 8 epochs.**
* Jack and the committee view this **positively** because it:
  * Provides **extra time** to handle NCL and Critical Integrations properly.
  * Reduces the risk of **New Year holiday voting bottlenecks**.
  * Avoids constitutional edge-cases around overlapping timelines.

#### 3.2 Constitutional Timing Issue (Explanation by Nico)

Nico explained why the extension is constitutionally important:

* Current situation without extension:
  * The **Critical Integrations Budget Info Action** expires at the **end of epoch 603** (Dec 30).
  * Only after epoch 603 transitions to **604** can the system determine whether the info action is formally **approved and ratified**.
  * The **current NCL expires at the end of epoch 604** (Jan 4, 2026).
* If the **Treasury Withdrawal** for Critical Integrations only reaches required thresholds in **epoch 604**, its **enactment would occur at the transition to epoch 605**.
* Problem:
  * At the moment of enactment (start of epoch 605), **no valid NCL** would exist, rendering the TW **unconstitutional**.
* The **8-epoch extension** solves this by ensuring:
  * There is **overlap** between:
    * the ratified Critical Integrations budget & TW timelines, and
    * a **valid NCL**.

#### 3.3 Position of Budget Committee

* Jack intends to secure **Board permission for Intersect to publicly endorse** the NCL extension and support its passage.
* The extension:
  * Gives the **Budget Committee more time** to refine the **2026–27 NCL**.
  * Removes pressure to push NCL votes through during the holiday season.
* Next Board meeting: **December 11, 2025**
  * NCL and related topics will be on that agenda.

***

### **4. 2026–27 Net Change Limit – Reconsideration**

#### 4.1 Status of Existing Proposal

* A **350M ADA, 18-month NCL** proposal (2026–27) was **already submitted to the Board** following prior committee work.
* Original rationale:
  * **2025 inflows** (January–December), plus
  * **Unspent surplus** from the 2025 NCL, rounded to a clean **350M ADA**.
* New reality:
  * The **Critical Integrations budget (\~70M ADA)** will largely consume the **previous NCL surplus**.
  * Therefore, the simplification “inflows + leftover = 350M” is **no longer accurate** as written.

#### 4.2 Board Feedback

* Jack reported early Board feedback:
  * Board wants a **clearer justification** for the 350M ADA number.
  * There is a sense that **additional capacity** may be warranted (i.e., potentially **more than 350M**), to:
    * Enable more **strategic investments**, and
    * Avoid constraining major ecosystem opportunities.
* No specific alternative number (e.g. 400M or 500M) has been requested yet, but Board is open to a **higher NCL** if properly justified.

#### 4.3 Discussion: Draper & Other Large Budget Items

* **Draper multi-year budget (\~70M ADA):**
  * Not all drawn in year one; expected in staged withdrawals over several years.
  * Raises questions:
    * How much of **multi-year commitments** should be reflected in any **single-year NCL**?
    * Does it overly complicate the process to track multiple years of residual commitments?
* **Accounting complexity & ADA price volatility:**
  * If 70M ADA is withdrawn upfront into a contract:
    * It becomes a **large honeypot** exposed to price swings and governance/longevity questions.
  * If instead:
    * DReps approve **annual withdrawals** (e.g., 20M ADA in 2026, more later),
    * There is room to **adjust** draws based on ADA price and updated needs.
* Committee acknowledges:
  * Multi-year plans will add **complexity**, especially with changing ADA prices.
  * However, **per-year TWs** preserve flexibility and allow DReps to make **contextual decisions** each year.

***

### **5. Role of a Treasury Management Working Group**

#### 5.1 Concept

* Lloyd reiterated a previous idea:
  * Establish a **Treasury Management Working Group** composed of:
    * Representatives from **founding entities**,
    * IO, CF, Midnight, major service providers,
    * Possibly CF business development (e.g., Pierre) and others close to the pipeline.
* Purpose:
  * Gather forward-looking information on **large-scale funding needs** (e.g., Draper, stablecoin liquidity, infrastructure asks).
  * Size expected **Treasury “load”** over the next 1–3 years.
  * Provide inputs to help **calibrate NCL levels** beyond strictly inflow-based logic.

#### 5.2 Tradeoffs

* **Pros:**
  * Better visibility on **critical strategic asks**.
  * More nuanced calibration of NCL (e.g., inflows + specific top-up).
* **Cons:**
  * Administrative overhead and coordination burden.
  * Risk that the committee still **won’t have complete information**.
  * Could delay time-sensitive decisions, especially given current **time constraints**.

***

### **6. NCL Strategy – Options and Philosophical Debate**

#### 6.1 Two Main Approaches

1. **Conservative, inflow-based approach**
   * NCL = **previous-year inflows** (optionally ±X%).
   * No deliberate deficit; the **Treasury is preserved** or slowly grows.
   * Special large opportunities require **dedicated NCL raises** (e.g., a one-off NCL increase tied to a specific proposal).
2. **Investment-oriented, deficit-tolerant approach**
   * NCL deliberately set **above inflows** (e.g., inflows + 20%, 30%, etc.).
   * Acknowledges that:
     * The Treasury is a **finite but investable resource**.
     * Some deficit spending is justified to **grow the ecosystem and future inflows** (sovereign wealth fund analogy).

#### 6.2 Nico’s Perspective

* Intersect’s core mandate may be:
  * Ensure Cardano governance **always has a valid NCL**.
  * Base NCL on **sound, simple logic**:
    * e.g., **2025 inflows ±15%** as the **Intersect baseline NCL**.
* If coalitions (e.g., pentad) want to **spend more**:
  * They can create a separate **NCL governance action** for a higher limit tied to a specific proposal.
* Caution:
  * Spinning up a fully-fledged treasury-management function within the committee may be **too heavy** and still incomplete.

#### 6.3 Lloyd’s Percentage-Of-Income Framework

* Proposed medium/long-term pattern:

  > NCL is defined as:\
  > **Available income for period = previous-year inflows**\
  > **NCL% = desired spend percentage (e.g., 90%, 100%, 120%)**
  >
  > Net Change Limit for the year = **Income × NCL%**
* Scenarios:
  * **100%** → purely spend current inflows (Treasury balance stable).
  * **<100%** → Treasury grows (saving for future).
  * **>100%** → Treasury shrinks deliberately to fund aggressive growth.
* Over time, community can choose a comfortable **NCL% range**, balancing prudence and investment.

#### 6.4 Simo’s Question to Voting Members

* Simo asked each voting member to reflect on:
  * Whether they support:
    * **Inflows-only NCL**,
    * **Inflows + modest premium**, or
    * **More aggressive spending above inflows**.
* This feedback is needed to craft a **credible rationale** and **wording** for the final NCL governance action.

***

### **7. Emerging Consensus for This Cycle**

#### 7.1 Keep 350M ADA, Adjust Rationale

* Given time constraints and the new context, the discussion converged around:
  * **Keep the 350M ADA NCL figure** (rather than scaling it down).
  * Update the rationale to reflect:
    * **Actual 2025 usage** (2025 effectively used up to 350M ADA once Critical Integrations is included).
    * That 350M is roughly **2025 inflows plus \~20%**, representing a **modest, deliberate premium** to enable strategic investment.
  * Maintain the **18-month window** structure, with further refinements to exact epochs and wording.
* Arguments in favor:
  * Reducing NCL below 350M now would likely **force another NCL raise mid-year**, increasing governance overhead.
  * 350M is still **relatively conservative** vs. the total Treasury balance.
  * It leaves room for:
    * **Critical Integrations**,
    * Test deployments of higher-impact initiatives, and
    * Additional proposals, without precluding later special NCL actions.

#### 7.2 Timing & Process

* Because the **Critical Integrations budget** undermined the old “inflows + leftover” narrative, the **rationale text must be updated**.
* There is not yet a final vote on the updated rationale; the intention is:
  * **Revise the document this week**, and
  * **Vote at the Wednesday meeting** (if quorum is present).
  * Monday’s weekly call will act as a **fallback** if Wednesday does not achieve quorum.

***

### **8. Action Items**

| Action                                                                                                         | Owner                              | Due Date                    | Notes                                                                                           |
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- | --------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Update NCL rationale to reflect 2025 inflows + \~20% and full expected usage (including Critical Integrations) | Lloyd & Simo                       | By Wednesday, Dec 3, 2025   | Keep NCL at 350M ADA; clarify logic and narrative.                                              |
| Prepare updated NCL draft for committee review and vote                                                        | Lloyd & Simo                       | Next Wednesday meeting      | Vote if quorum is present; Monday is backup.                                                    |
| Ensure newly elected committee members are added to invites and permissions                                    | Lloyd & Simo                       | Immediately after meeting   | Needed for quorum and inclusion in upcoming NCL decisions.                                      |
| Coordinate with Board on support for the NCL extension GA                                                      | Jack                               | Before Dec 11 Board meeting | Seek Board permission to publicly endorse the extension.                                        |
| (Optional longer-term) Initiate Treasury Management Working Group                                              | Lloyd (with input from Nico, Simo) | To be scheduled             | Identify founding entity reps, IO, CF BD (e.g., Pierre), etc., to improve medium-term planning. |

***

### **9. Decisions Recorded**

* **No formal vote** was taken on the updated NCL rationale during this meeting.
* **Emerging direction**:
  * Maintain **350M ADA** as the proposed NCL amount.
  * Treat it as **2025 inflows + \~20%** premium.
  * Update rationale text accordingly and **seek formal approval at the next meeting**.

***

### **10. Adjournment**

* Meeting ended at the top of the hour.
* Lloyd reminded Dimitri (who joined late) that the key topic for Wednesday will be the **NCL update and rationale refinement**.
* Next major touchpoint: **Wednesday weekly Budget Committee call**, followed by the **Board meeting on December 11, 2025**.


---

# Agent Instructions: 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:

```
GET https://budgetcommittee.docs.intersectmbo.org/committee-meeting-notes/2025-meeting-notes/budget-committee-weekly-meetings/december-1st-2025-budget-comm-minutes.md?ask=<question>
```

The question should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language.
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.