# November 24th, 2025 Budget Comm Minutes ## **Budget Committee Weekly Meeting — November 24th, 2025** **Date:** November 24, 2025\ **Attendance:** * **Committee Members:** * Jose Velazquez * Kriss Baird * Kris Kowalski – Chair * Megan Hess – Vice Chair * Mercy * Nico Cerny * Rita Mistry * Shunsuke (Shinsuke) Murasaki * Lloyd Duhon – Secretary * **Project Manager:** Simo Simovic * **Executive Leadership:** * Jack Briggs – Interim Executive Director (joined during meeting) **Quorum:** Confirmed at start of meeting. *** ### **1. Opening and Agenda Overview** Lloyd opened the meeting, noted the end of year approaching, and confirmed quorum. #### **Primary Agenda Items:** 1. **Net Change Limit (NCL)** — review of draft, rationale, timeline, and readiness for Board submission. 2. **Budget Process Info Action Draft** — review of language, timeline for forum publication, and path to governance action. The goal of today’s call is to finalize both drafts so they can be submitted to the **Intersect Board** for approval and then posted to the **GovTool Forum** for a two-week feedback period. The subsequent governance action would then ideally go on chain in **early January 2026**. Jack requested a **clear slide summarizing Board asks and next steps** by tomorrow morning for inclusion in a Board deck. *** ### **2. Net Change Limit (NCL) Draft Review** #### **2.1 Context and Timeline Requirements** * The **2025 NCL expires at epoch 604** on **January 4, 2026**. * Without a new NCL effective at **epoch 605 (Jan 5, 2026)**, **all Treasury withdrawals would be blocked**, halting ecosystem funding. * The draft NCL under review covers the period **epoch 605 → epoch 713** (ending **July 3, 2027**). #### **2.2 Proposed NCL: 350 Million ADA (18-Months)** The committee discussed the rationale for using an **18-month NCL** rather than the previously considered 6-month or 12-month alternatives. **Primary reasons for 18-month NCL:** * Avoid forcing DReps to vote on multiple NCLs in close succession (low appetite for repeated votes). * Combine: * Remaining unspent funds from 2025 NCL, and * Actual 2025 inflows (January–December),\ resulting in an approximate **350M ADA available spend** baseline. * Establish a **new annual NCL cycle beginning in June each year**, avoiding recurring holiday-season governance actions. * Move the ecosystem closer to the long-term vision where NCL =\ \&#xNAN;**(previous-year actual inflows) × (% chosen by DReps)**.\ Today’s NCL is a practical “baby step” toward this model. #### **2.3 Discussion: Is 350M ADA Sufficient?** * **Chris Baird** expressed concern that 350M ADA may be **too low** considering potential budget needs across strategic priorities. * Committee acknowledged that if new opportunities arise (e.g., major stablecoin liquidity requirements), DReps can **raise an additional NCL** later in the year. * The proposed amount is considered **conservative but defensible**, balancing: * investment opportunity, * Treasury stewardship, and * governance practicality. #### **2.4 Draper CF Budget Context** * Draper’s anticipated multi-year budget (\~70M ADA total) will **not** be withdrawn in a lump sum. * Expected Treasury withdrawals may occur in **3–4 tranches**, with \~20M ADA withdrawn in 2026 and subsequent withdrawals in later years. * NCL governs **withdrawals**, not budgets — thus Draper’s multi-year plan does not affect near-term NCL capacity. *** ### **3. Draft Corrections & Updates During Meeting** Key updates made to the draft: * **Epoch dates corrected:** * Start: epoch **605**, January 5, 2026 * End: epoch **713**, July 3, 2027 * **Rationale updated** to reflect: * inflows from 2025, * carry-over from 2025 NCL, * consolidation of 6-month + 12-month NCL into one 18-month NCL. * Language revised to reflect the **conservative posture** of the proposal. * References to last year's unique circumstances (e.g., 67% threshold discussion) **removed** — no longer relevant. * Placed emphasis on: * predictable annual NCL cycle * reducing holiday-period governance fatigue * basing NCL on **actual inflows**, not projections #### **3.1 Data Needed for Finalization** Jack requested the exact figure of ADA withdrawn from the Treasury “**to the Lovelace**” for 2025.\ Lloyd will obtain accurate figures from **Thomas Linseth’s Treasury tracking tool**. #### **3.2 Proposal Amount & Rounding Approach** * Committee reaffirmed policy of rounding to a **clean number**, within ±5% of the calculation. * If the remaining surplus differs slightly (e.g., inflows 290M + surplus 77M = 367M), we **still round to 350M ADA** for clarity and governance practicality. *** ### **4. Governance Considerations & Constitutionality** #### **4.1 Necessity of Constitutional Committee (CC) Review** Nico provided his constitutional perspective: * The NCL **does not execute on-chain changes**, making it **not necessarily subject** to mandatory CC ratification. * Treasury withdrawals only require: * DRep approval **>50%**, and * existence of an approved NCL. * CC members may differ philosophically, but practically: * A valid NCL **only requires DRep threshold**, not CC approval. * For clarity, the Governance Action should **explicitly state**: * The NCL is an **Info Action** with no direct on-chain effect. * The Constitution assigns NCL approval responsibility to DReps. The committee agrees this clarification will be added. *** ### **5. Need for Public Education and Transparency** The committee discussed the importance of: * publishing Dimitri’s long-term Treasury sustainability model, * making all supporting artifacts available through a **single consolidated landing page**, * updating the ecosystem on: * actual Treasury inflows, * actual outflows, * unused vs. withdrawn vs. spent funds. Jack suggested this documentation also be linked in the **GovTool forum post** and the governance action itself. Additionally: * The persistent community myth that Treasury withdrawals impact ADA price was addressed. * Lloyd reiterated that empirical research shows **ADA price action is macro-driven**, not Treasury-driven. * The blog accompanying the NCL proposal will include **only factual data**, avoiding financial commentary. *** ### **6. Final Committee Review of the NCL Draft** Prior to calling the vote, members reviewed: * corrected dates * revised rationale * tightened language * treatment of unspent funds * constitutional framing General sentiment was positive and aligned. Colleen confirmed the proposal was clear and sensible from an observer perspective. *** ### **7. Motion to Advance the NCL to the Board** **Motion:** Move the **2026–27 Net Change Limit** governance action draft to the Intersect Board for approval and subsequent publication to the **GovTool Forum**. **Raised by:** Chris Kowalski\ **Seconded by:** Megan Hess #### **7.1 Discussion Prior to Vote** * **Nico:** Wanted clarification on forum timing — Committee agreed the GA should enter forum **immediately upon Board approval**. * **Chris Baird:** Expressed concern that the amount may be lower than needed; nonetheless supported moving forward while noting reservations. * **Murasaki:** Concerned primarily about **timing and ecosystem busyness**, not the content — signaled an opposing vote but supportive of the process. * **Committee reaffirmed** that another NCL can always be introduced later if needed. #### **7.2 Vote** | Member | Vote | | ---------------------------- | ----------------------- | | Chris Baird | Yes (with reservations) | | Megan Hess | Yes | | Mercy | Yes | | Nico Cerny | Yes | | Shinsuke Murasaki | No | | Christian Kowalski | Yes | | Others present (non-members) | Not voting | **Result:**\ **Motion PASSES** — forwarded to Board with **1 vote in opposition**. #### **7.3 Murasaki’s Rationale (for the record)** * Concern is **timing**, given ecosystem workload and upcoming governance cycles. *** ### **8. Closing & Next Steps** #### **Immediate next steps:** * Lloyd & Simo finalize: * updated rationale * exact inflow/outflow numbers * constitutional framing sentences * Board slide summarizing the proposal * Board review expected **tomorrow**. * Upon approval, NCL draft will be posted to **GovTool Forum** for two-week community feedback. * Anticipated governance action target: **early January 2026** (prior to epoch 605 transition). Lloyd thanked the committee for a highly productive session.\ Meeting adjourned with a brief post-call discussion request. --- # 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/november-24th-2025-budget-comm-minutes.md?ask= ``` 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.