January 19th, 2026 Budget Comm Minutes
Budget Committee Weekly Meeting — January 19th, 2026
Date: January 19, 2026 Time: 07:58 EST
Attendees: Christina Gianelloni, Colleen O’Beirne, Dimitri (Dynamic Strategies), Eric Helms (SCATDAO), Georgia Hutton (Delivery Assurance), Kriss Baird, Kristijan (Chris) Kowalsky, Lloyd Duhon, Megan Hess (Chair), Nicolas Cerny, Rita Mistry, Shunsuke Murasaki, Simo Simovic (+ “Simo Simovic’s Presentation”)
Quorum: Confirmed at start of meeting.
1. Opening and Key Priorities
Lloyd opened the meeting, welcomed members and guests, and confirmed quorum.
Primary priorities discussed
Finalize the PRD / technical specification for the proposal submission + feedback loop tooling (time-sensitive).
Continue refining the Budget Process Info Action (BPIA) (including adding rationale to each phase/step).
Continue progress on the budget template workstream (Rita + Nico draft underway).
Track and respond to NCL on-chain voting status and “no” vote rationales.
2. Net Change Limit Voting Status
Lloyd reviewed current NCL progress:
~40.38% approval (reported during meeting)
~2.29B ADA voting “yes”
Several “no” votes were present; Lloyd has been requesting rationales from “no” voters and noted most “no” votes now include rationale.
Next step: Lloyd will pull rationale comments into a short report for Wednesday so the committee can assess whether any misconceptions or messaging issues need to be addressed.
3. Budget Process Info Action (BPIA) — Rationale-by-Step Work
Simo provided a working session recap and task coordination:
Rationale additions were assigned by step during the Wednesday working session.
Progress noted:
Simo completed Step 1 rationale.
Eric contributed on Step 4 and Step 3 (per Simo’s comments).
Lloyd is assigned to complete additional rationale work during the week (Simo stated Lloyd is “Step 3,” and asked Lloyd to complete it this week).
Simo emphasized the need to also define dates and timeline associated with publishing the BPIA.
4. Tooling Decision Context: PRDMS vs Ecclesia (Funding and Risk Mitigation)
4.1 Where tooling stands (Lloyd)
Lloyd described an internal dev effort (funded personally as a “gift” effort) that progressed significantly but stalled due to lack of continued funding.
The Open Source Committee expressed interest and has funding via the Paid Open Source model, but:
Funding release and contracting have been delayed.
Participation/burnout challenges have slowed execution.
Lloyd’s dev estimate: ~90% of PRD requirements are already covered by prior work; remaining ~10% could be completed and tested in time for March if funded.
4.2 Parallel mitigation plan (Simo)
Simo outlined a contingency plan so the process is not blocked:
Proceed with PRD finalization this week.
Work with Ecclesia (Adam) to build the needed submission + feedback loop functionality within ~5 weeks, enabling:
Late Feb completion
Early March testing
Readiness for a March proposal window (target dates referenced: testing/approval by ~March 18; readiness by ~March 23).
Simo is awaiting Ecclesia’s formal estimate (“their ask”) and timing confirmation.
4.3 Committee clarity request (Nico)
Nico requested clarity on which tool is being used, noting that process discussion is unproductive without tooling clarity.
Outcome: Committee acknowledged both tracks remain possible, but agreed the immediate priority is finalizing the PRD, so either development path has a stable specification.
5. PRD / Technical Specification Review
Simo shared the technical specification and requested committee review and (ideally) approval.
5.1 Key clarifications and edits requested
Deposits vs Treasury fee:
Lloyd instructed to remove any “deposit lock-up” requirement and instead use:
A field for tracking treasury fee / donation transaction hash, and
A validation step to ensure the hash is present/valid before publication.
Ranking support:
Dimitri asked about ranking (highest-to-lowest).
Lloyd clarified ranking is part of the voting phase (Ecclesia capability), while PRD focus is the submission + feedback loop.
5.2 Dynamic template fields and comparability (Rita + Nico)
Rita described the evolving template approach:
Users select a Focus Area which automatically populates:
Pillar description
Thematic area
Enhancement description (reduces proposer workload, prevents inconsistent framing)
Add KPIs and 2030 targets as dynamic elements:
Align proposals to the 2030 strategy
Support comparability across proposals
Multi-year vs annual logic:
If proposer enters 12 months → annual plan fields
If multi-year → require year-by-year plans and budget breakdowns
Nico presented how template is grounded in the Cardano 2030 strategy:
Five pillars, multiple focus areas (stated as ~33)
Nine KPIs (with three “core” KPIs noted)
Proposers must map proposals to relevant KPIs and targets.
5.3 Implementation approach and scope control (Chris Baird)
Chris Baird cautioned against scope creep:
Dynamic behavior implies JSON-driven configuration or template variants.
Admin consoles are costly; JSON configuration is feasible for a 5-week build.
Maintain focus on “what can be done in five weeks.”
5.4 Feedback loop privacy and communications (Eric)
Eric requested support for private communications:
Public comments are valuable, but some topics require private follow-up.
Consensus direction:
Ensure proposer contact info is available to DReps (and/or via authenticated DRep view), enabling off-platform follow-up through preferred channels.
DMs may be optional; at minimum, provide contact channels and structured visibility controls.
5.5 “Stretch goals” structure
Lloyd proposed including “stretch goals” so the PRD:
Captures a credible MVP for five weeks,
While signaling longer-term enhancements (e.g., vetted subject matter expert accounts, committee-badged feedback).
Nico supported the stretch goals concept and emphasized:
Dev teams should explicitly state what is feasible within five weeks.
The committee should identify “must-haves” vs “nice-to-haves.”
Rita suggested the committee internally prioritize with a must/should/could framework to reduce delivery risk.
6. Budget Template Progress
Lloyd acknowledged strong progress by Rita + Nico on the budget template draft.
Several members were tagged to begin commenting asynchronously.
Plan to revisit later in the call if time allowed; primary focus remained PRD completion and BPIA progress.
7. Decision Checkpoint
A formal approval vote on the PRD did not occur in this session.
Chris Baird stated for the record that he would vote “no” today because edits were still being made live.
The committee agreed to aim for a vote during Wednesday working session, provided quorum.
8. Action Items
Compile “no” vote rationales on NCL and summarize for committee
Lloyd
Review for messaging gaps and outreach targets
Complete assigned BPIA rationale section(s)
Lloyd (and assigned members)
Add rationale per step for clarity and institutional memory
Finalize PRD text edits: remove deposit lock-up; use treasury fee tx hash + validation
Simo + Lloyd
Ensure PRD matches process (fee-to-treasury model)
Add “validation checks” section above “stretch goals”
Lloyd
Keep stretch goals last; clarify MVP vs future enhancements
Define must-have vs nice-to-have priorities (MoSCoW) for PRD
Committee
Reduce scope creep; enable 5-week delivery
Provide Ecclesia team updated template details and PRD after edits
Simo
Pending estimate/ask from Ecclesia
Confirm Open Source Committee funding timeline (paid open source)
Lloyd + OSC liaisons
Parallel option; not assumed
Prepare for PRD vote on Wednesday
All voting members
Target approval so dev work can start immediately
9. Adjournment
Lloyd closed by emphasizing urgency:
Finalize the PRD by Wednesday if possible,
Approve and hand to whichever development path is funded so delivery can begin immediately.
Meeting ended after 01:13:06.
Last updated