January 12th, 2026 Budget Comm Minutes
Budget Committee Weekly Meeting — January 12th, 2026
Date: January 12, 2026 Time: 07:57 EST Attendees: Colleen O’Beirne, Dimitri (Dynamic Strategies), Kriss Baird, Kristijan (Chris) Kowalsky, Lloyd Duhon, Megan Hess (Chair), Nicolas Cerny, Otávio Lima, Rita Mistry, Simo Simovic, Christina Gianelloni (view/listen)
Quorum: Achieved once Kriss Baird joined (noted during meeting).
1. Opening and Context
Lloyd opened the meeting, welcomed attendees, and acknowledged the successful milestone:
Net Change Limit (NCL) posted on-chain (committee congratulated for reaching this step).
A phone attendee (+1 864-***-**10) was present initially as view-only until identity could be clarified.
Knowledge Base Maintenance
Nico noted the Budget Committee knowledge base (including member list) is outdated.
Lloyd confirmed this will be updated and cited recent capacity constraints; Simo is now helping with administrative execution.
2. Net Change Limit (NCL) — Voting Mobilization Strategy
2.1 Current Need
With the NCL live on-chain, the priority is now increasing DRep participation and vote volume (and ensuring rationale is provided, especially on “no” votes).
2.2 Outreach Channels (Lloyd)
Lloyd outlined an outreach plan to mobilize DRep voting:
Direct outreach (“open Rolodex”) to known DReps
DRep forum postings
Cardano official Telegram reminders
Discord channels where DReps congregate
WhatsApp groups
Outreach to Murasaki for Japanese DRep Signal group amplification
Encourage Cardano Foundation and other stakeholders to vote in parallel as they are able
Lloyd also noted he is directly chasing “no” voters who did not provide rationale, to capture actionable feedback.
2.3 Response to Utah Feedback (NCL Rationale Language)
Simo raised a concern about public conversation on X:
Utah questioned a sentence implying the committee considered “future development load in 2026.”
Simo suggested keeping rationale simple:
“300 + 50” (historic inflows + approved budget actions not yet withdrawn) rather than future projections.
Lloyd stated:
The committee did attempt future-looking outreach to understand likely 2026 load, and the language reflects that intent.
Lloyd will address Utah’s feedback publicly and explain why the language was included.
Nico added a general point:
The committee should not overreact to individual DRep preferences; not every comment requires major concession.
3. ClickUp Plan for Budget Process Execution
Simo provided a project management update:
The committee’s ClickUp workspace includes tasks and milestones for the full 2026 budget process.
Major milestone after NCL: submit the 2026 Budget Process Plan for approval/vote (Budget Process Info Action).
Simo will:
Assign dates, priorities, and owners
Confirm access for all voting members
Review the plan in more detail during Wednesday’s working session
Lloyd will also post the ClickUp link into committee Discord for easy retrieval.
4. Product Committee Roadmap / Strategy Status
Rita asked for status of Product Committee roadmap/strategy timelines.
Lloyd clarified:
Roadmap approval impacts launching the budget process itself, but does not block socializing or approving the Budget Process Info Action.
Current status (as observed during the call):
Roadmap approval around ~33%, with limited stakeholder push so far.
Lloyd will encourage DReps to vote on all currently open actions while conducting NCL outreach:
Roadmap
Utah’s constitutional change
Any other open governance actions
5. Budget Process Info Action — Discussion Themes
The committee began framing guidance for improving the Budget Process Info Action:
5.1 Make the Process “Year-by-Year,” Not “2026-Only”
Lloyd noted the current document references “2026” frequently and should be oriented toward a repeatable annual process, with amendments as needed.
5.2 Multi-Year Budget Treatment (Key Discussion)
Simo asked whether the process should include explicit guidance on multi-year budgets.
Nico framed the governance challenge:
Avoid a repeat of last year’s “apples vs oranges vs watermelons” problem:
Proposals spanning very different time horizons (e.g., 6-month builds vs 5-year research plans)
Vision 2030 may provide goals, but not yet clear year-by-year compartmentalization.
Chris Baird cautioned against over-constraining too early:
Excessive bounding risks putting the ecosystem “in a box.”
Dimitri suggested a practical structure:
Default track for most proposals ≤ 1 year
Longer-dated proposals handled as ad hoc outside the standard budget funnel if needed.
Colleen (engineering perspective) supported:
Budgets are typically managed year-by-year.
Lloyd proposed a hybrid model:
Allow multi-year plans to be presented as multi-year intent and transparency,
with year-by-year Treasury withdrawals to preserve accountability and reduce risk.
Multi-year visibility reduces confusion for DReps evaluating year-one work that may not stand alone.
Rita aligned:
Multi-year budget planning is valuable for transparency and process efficiency,
but does not guarantee funding continuity—future withdrawals remain contingent on performance.
Outcome:
The committee leaned toward allowing multi-year plans but maintaining annual withdrawal accountability and making disclosures explicit.
5.3 Retrospective Reporting Concern
Nico referenced community concern (e.g., Gintama forum post):
Some stakeholders want clearer retrospective status on 2025 proposals before discussing new NCL and new cycles.
Not resolved during this meeting, but flagged as a continuing narrative risk.
6. Decision: Offboard Inactive Member (Rajitha Vikramasan)
6.1 Motion
Nico requested initiating formal offboarding of Rajitha Vikramasan (elected in May; no participation; non-responsive).
Lloyd confirmed Rajitha is a voting member and has been contacted repeatedly with no response, including stipend outreach.
Motion: Remove Rajitha from the Budget Committee and offer the seat to the runner-up from the October election, with special election as fallback if needed.
Moved: Nicolas Cerny
Seconded: Kristijan Kowalsky
Motion amended to include offering seat to runner-up rather than immediate special election.
6.2 Discussion
Dimitri supported filling the seat to improve quorum reliability.
Megan asked about procedure and time frame:
Replacement would serve until the April election (Rajitha’s seat was tied to the April cycle).
Simo noted there are two runner-ups tied with equal votes.
Lloyd confirmed:
Offer will go to both; seat goes to first to accept (or next if one declines).
6.3 Vote (Unanimous)
Dimitri: Yes
Kriss Baird: Yes
Kristijan Kowalsky: Yes
Nicolas Cerny: Yes
Otávio Lima: Yes
Rita Mistry: Yes
Megan Hess: Yes
Result: Motion PASSES unanimously.
6.4 Follow-Up
Simo will provide contact details for the tied runner-ups.
Lloyd will contact both and onboard the first acceptance.
7. Clarification: Proposal Fee vs 100,000 ADA Deposit
Kriss asked for clarity on why:
Proposal fee is 500–1,000 ADA, while another requirement references 100,000 ADA.
Lloyd clarified:
500–1,000 ADA fee: payable by all proposers to participate; paid into Treasury as repayment for process overhead.
Treasury withdrawals will be bundled:
Two groupings: 67–75% and 75–100% (per current draft approach).
Simo confirmed the 75% split was suggested by the Budget Committee for equal-percentage framing.
8. Additional Notes
Rita noted:
The committee’s discussions may influence future budget templates; members should send her template ideas as they arise.
Lloyd confirmed templates are next major step after process approval, but current priority is completing and finalizing process language.
9. Action Items
Update Budget Committee knowledge base/member list
Lloyd + Simo
Address outdated records (members list, documentation)
Execute NCL voting outreach plan across channels (DRep forum, Telegram, Discord, WhatsApp, direct calls, Japan DRep group)
Lloyd
Include follow-ups for “no” votes lacking rationale
Respond publicly to Utah question re: NCL rationale language
Lloyd
Clarify why future-looking language was included; keep focus on participation
Publish ClickUp link in committee Discord; validate member access
Lloyd + Simo
Confirm all voting members have access
Begin offboarding Rajitha; contact tied runner-ups and onboard first acceptance
Lloyd + Simo
Runner-up term ends April election
Continue BPIA refinement; incorporate multi-year disclosure approach and annual accountability
Committee
Primary focus of Wednesday working session
10. Adjournment
Lloyd thanked members for participation and emphasized the immediate next step:
Deep working session on the Budget Process Info Action on Wednesday.
Meeting adjourned at approximately 00:56:41.
Last updated