These are fair questions to be asked 
Hopefully the community can continue to engage on these topics. I think some Info GAs may be needed to help decide on things like DRep compensation.
The Info GA could not only ask if the community agreed with a preferred (via offchain narrowing) model, but also the method (that would exclude the need for KYC).
Sorry, it’s mostly Google translated, but I’ll share my thoughts.
In particular, it seems that the CC costs are becoming increasingly difficult, as some members refuse to accept them.
How about just creating a $200,000 Civic Committee CC-only open grant for ICC/CC members who are willing to accept funding from the Civic Committee, and removing other CC-related rewards, travel allowances, etc.?
Personally, I’m reluctant to completely remove the option to receive funding from the Civic Committee. I think that future CC members elected in CC elections may want this, trusting Intersect to a certain extent, in order to focus on CC work, without having the resources to establish their own CardanoBudget process. Honestly, I think that all current ICC members are capable of building their own Cardano Budget process, but expecting future CC members to do so may hinder broad participation in CC elections.
You’re out of line, Phil.
You need to learn to accept criticism or resign.
This isn’t a centralized business. Intersect has to earn it’s place in administering budgets, and your attitude towards concerned community members isn’t helping.
Anyone backing Drep compensation via Intersect contracts w/ non-disparagement clauses is a threat to the community. I’ll stand on that business with the greater community and win. Bet
Please read my comment more carefully Kyle before responding. I am happy to take fair criticism, but accusing me of being told what to do as a committee member by Intersect staff is not fair criticism. Are you being told what to do by Intersect staff in your role on the Product Committee?
I literally suggested we use an Info governance action to ask the community 
I disagree.
Every single time I have seen anyone exert criticism over the process your first instinct is to dismiss concerns. It’s not cool.
Please re-read my comment.
I have no issue with people expressing concerns over the process. I ONLY criticised the accusations against me and others (like you) in how we are conducting ourselves as committee members.
If you are not able to appreciate that this is the source of my comment, then it doesn’t sound like you are prepared to have an honest conversation.
I would prefer to have honest conversations based on what is said, rather who said it.
I’ll dig up a dozen specific examples in the morning, Phil. It’s getting old.
And yes, the Budget Committee has indeed imposed deadlines and agendas upon the Product Committee to a point where I had to inform our secretary that Product owns Product’s agenda and interference would not be tolerated. There is absolutely a bureaucratic drive within Intersect and claiming otherwise is 100% disingenuous.
Providing examples of when I have disagreed with people is not me suggesting people should not be allowed to express their arguments. I will fight for people’s right to express their opinion, even if I disagree with them. Are you suggesting that because I disagree with you more often than not, that I shouldn’t have that freedom? Don’t take this question as an accusation, as it is a genuine question for you to answer.
Right now though you are putting up strawman arguments, suggesting I said something I didn’t. I have not dismissed any criticism of the Intersect process, I have ONLY dismissed the suggestion that I am being told what to do by Intersect staff. If you are being told what to do, then that is on you to deal with, but don’t lump me in with how you carry out your responsibilities on a committee.
Disagreement is necessary, Phil. It’s the dismissive attitude that’s comes across as unsavory within a decentralized community. I am not referring to our own interactions, but from those which I have observed.
Sean stated “by those half-elected committees whom the Intersect bureaucrats tell what to do”. Unelected committee members have indeed been influencing the process and driving outside agendas. Perhaps you may not see it in your committees, but your first instinct was to dismiss Sean’s comment as FUD as opposed to listening and addressing the primary and very viable concern as the tendering process is completely opaque - we call that gaslighting where I come from and I don’t appreciate it.
Great, now we are actually having an honest conversation about the comment in question.
I am happy to have a discussion about people’s experience with the Intersect process, which is why I asked Sean to elaborate.
I will however not just roll over and believe accusations (especially when I am implicated in them). I need verifiable evidence.
Also, be careful that in your haste to accuse me of being dismissive, that you are not also being dismissive of my comments 
I don’t want to look at different budget proposals for all CC members individually, that seems like an unnecessary burden for the dreps, it should be done for the whole CC together. If a member chooses to not accept funds from this budget, or only partially what they need, so be it, but I will vote NO if they ask for a separate budget. I agree that not requested funds from the CC members should be returned to the treasury.
What hardware is exactly needed that costs so much? I guess they will all have computers already no? 
Most of them that are serious will probably already have a HW to store their keys on too no? Also, if a member is an organization consisting of multiple people, do we really need to give them funds to take everyone of their members into account? Isn’t it their choice to have a certain amount of members (e.g. Intersect 20 or so?). I think every CC member should be entitled to the same amount, regardless of how many people they have.
I’m definitely going the vote NO on the gov action that contains this, this is a tiebreaker for me. In the future maybe yes, but now no… @LloydDuhon, is there a possibility to make a separate gov action only for this? The topic is highly controversial and many seem to be against it, so I think there’s a good chance it won’t get passed. If it has its own gov action, the rest of this bucket might get approved easier and we don’t lose time to fund it.
This is not an opinion based on deep analysis, it’s just a gut feeling 
I will revisit these needs later as I look more into the community budget discussion.
| ID | Title | Now | Suggest | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BC-0002-2025 | Audit Working Group | 400,000 | 200,000 | I personally think it is important, but it has been pointed out that the amount seems high. How about temporarily halving it until we can better explain this amount? |
| BC-0003-2025 | Tax Working Group | 200,000 | 0 | Wouldn’t it be reasonable to consider CDH’s tax affairs based on the Intersect operation fee of 20m ADA? |
| BC-0004-2025 | Budget Process | 100,000 | 100,000 | Why is this relegated to a low priority? I think the budget process was quite difficult. Let’s meet individually with all voting committee members for at least an hour on Zoom to gather detailed feedback and make major improvements. |
| BC-0005-2025 | Budget summit | 600,000 | 0 | 84% of respondents in the forum said it should be deleted. Can’t we hold the main event online and hold the offline event at the Cardano summit? |
| CC-0001-25 | Constitutional Committee Compensation | 504,000 | 0 | Since some ICC members are refusing to accept it, let’s give up on this budget. |
| CC-0003-25 | Interim Constitutional Committee legal advisory | 160,000 | 0 | Since some ICC members are refusing to accept it, let’s give up on this budget. |
| CC-0004-2025 | CC Contributor Reimbusement | 510,000 | 0 | Since some ICC members are refusing to accept it, let’s give up on this budget. |
| CC-0006-25 | Legal CC advisory | 700,000 | 0 | Since some ICC members are refusing to accept it, let’s give up on this budget. |
| CC-0007-25 | Education and Training - CC | 425,000 | 0 | Since some ICC members are refusing to accept it, let’s give up on this budget. |
| CC-0008-25 | CC Hardware | 75,000 | 0 | Since some ICC members are refusing to accept it, let’s give up on this budget. |
| CC-0009-25 | CC handover ceremony | 284,000 | 0 | Since some ICC members are refusing to accept it, let’s give up on this budget. |
| CC-0010-25 | DRep Compensation | 1,800,000 | 0 | 84% are against it. This also raises conflicts of interest and ethical issues. Let’s remove this budget for now until we can get a consensus that the majority of the community can understand. Once we have a consensus, we’ll add it right away. |
| CC-0011-25 | DRep support definition | 150,000 | 150,000 | Let’s implement this. |
| CC-0012-25 | Education and Training - DReps | 316,500 | 158,250 | I generally understand that education is necessary, but I don’t feel like I’ve seen much success with it. Until we have clear KPIs for how to measure this success, I’m offering half price. |
| CC-0013-25 | Education and training - SPO Cohort | 316,500 | 79,125 | The types of governance actions that require on-chain voting in SPO are less than half of those in DRep, so the education budget will be half that of DRep. |
| CC-0014-25 | Education - ADA Holders | 316,500 | 158,250 | I generally understand that education is necessary, but I don’t feel like I’ve seen much success with it. Until we have clear KPIs for how to measure this success, I’m offering half price. |
| CC-0015-25 | DRep tooling | 2,148,000 | 2,148,000 | Investing in governance tools is necessary. |
| CC-0016-25 | CC tooling | 250,000 | 250,000 | Investing in governance tools is necessary. |
| CC-0017-25 | Additional tooling grants | 500,000 | 500,000 | Investing in governance tools is necessary. |
| CC-0018-25 | Ratify Constitution | 225,000 | 225,000 | Given the importance of CC elections and the constitution, let’s ensure we have a budget for them. |
| CC-0020-25 | CC Elections admin | 300,000 | 300,000 | Given the importance of CC elections and the constitution, let’s ensure we have a budget for them. |
| CC-0021-25 | CC election tool | 40,000 | 40,000 | Given the importance of CC elections and the constitution, let’s ensure we have a budget for them. |
| CC-0024-25 | Annual CCC meeting | 150,000 | 0 | Since some ICC members are refusing to accept it, let’s give up on this budget. |
| CC-0025-25 | Expert consultation | 125,000 | 0 | What complex governance issues require expertise? The community has elected people who can solve these issues to be voting members of the Civic Committee, so no need to worry. |
| CC-0026-25 | Travel and events budget | 150,000 | 0 | No additional travel expenses are required as they are defined in the event’s budget. |
| CC-0027-25 | Process definition | 250,000 | 0 | Calculate the budget needed when the new constitution is further developed and the Civic Committee identifies any additional off-chain processes that are needed. If they are not yet specifically identified, they are not needed. |
| CC-0028-25 | Research | 100,000 | 0 | Calculate the budget needed when the new constitution is further developed and the Civic Committee identifies any additional off-chain processes that are needed. If they are not yet specifically identified, they are not needed. |
| CC-0029-25 | Gather technical requirements to address new Constitutional provisions | 150,000 | 0 | Calculate the budget needed when the new constitution is further developed and the Civic Committee identifies any additional off-chain processes that are needed. If they are not yet specifically identified, they are not needed. |
| CC-0030-25 | Expert consultation | 150,000 | 0 | Calculate the budget needed when the new constitution is further developed and the Civic Committee identifies any additional off-chain processes that are needed. If they are not yet specifically identified, they are not needed. |
| CC-0031-25 | Report research | 150,000 | 0 | Let’s develop a data analysis tool, not a data analysis report. Use a budget for tool development. |
| CC-0032-25 | Ecosystem mapping | 100,000 | 0 | Let’s develop a data analysis tool, not a data analysis report. Use a budget for tool development. |
| CC-0033-25 | Data analysis and measurement | 100,000 | 0 | Let’s develop a data analysis tool, not a data analysis report. Use a budget for tool development. |
| CC-0034-25 | Regional governance events | 300,000 | 300,000 | This might be something to support. |
| CC-0035-25 | Annual governance conference | 425,000 | 0 | Let’s do this as part of the Cardano Summit. |
| Miscellaneous | ||||
| CC-0036-25 | Refund Ikigai | 100,000 | 100,000 | Let’s return this. |
Thank you @YUTA_Oishi for reducing this to a somehow sane amount!
Even for the ones that you left in, I am still not comfortable with giving the decision to pay those out to a “committee” inside Intersect.
As sketched in https://forum.cardano.org/t/fundamental-critcism-of-the-budget-process/143519#p-367722-treasury-withdrawals-3, I want dReps to see a concrete plan what should be done by a concrete entity to receive the ADA in the end before anything is withdrawn from the treasury.
For example, for all the “education” and “tooling” items, we could also argue that whoever wants to be a dRep or even CC member should already have the competence to educate themselves and use the existing tools for their job. If they do not have that, how should they be able to do their due diligence on the things proposed to them? You need to have a deep technical understanding of Cardano to not be sold incoherent stuff by authors of governance action proposals.
If what is proposed is a clearly valuable tool or, e.g., detailed documentation rather than individual trainings, I might be more positive about it, but giving a blanket green light that the committee can pay for whatever it thinks is good governance education? Not so much.
It seems like there are several areas going through major cuts, reductions, and eliminations. There’s likely more to come. I understand the various reasons for this, some I support, some not really.
The market is doing what it does, the community is doing what it does, and the founding entities are doing what they do.
There’s 1.69B ada in the treasury.](https://cexplorer.io/pot) Growing 5M every 5 days. At Epoch 545, there will be 1.7B and still on average, right under 5M an epoch, 4.85 to 4.98M. We are likely to be 10 to 12 epochs away, best case scenario, from an approved budget. That’s an additional 50M ada. 1.75B at Epoch 555.
It seems like many of us are thinking the best way to conserve the treasury is to reduce the budget and attempt to identify and eliminate areas of doubt. Looking at the table above from @YUTA_Oishi, there are major cuts. There’s also a lot allocation for the Constitutional Committee that may be better viewed separately.
If there was an Empty Committee, what would the budget be or what does it need to be in that state?
I believe the budget is at 262M with 20M to Intersect included. I believe there’s still room to remove or reduce some things and also, re-align or reallocate some funding. It’s possible that a little coordination and communication may have a significant impact, now and later. There is one thing that is for certain. What we do now will have an impact in the community and extend beyond 2025.
Is this bad for the entire industry?
As an active citizen in the Cardano community, the Cardano Foundation wishes to engage proactively in the budget discussion by sharing our perspective. Accordingly, we have prepared the feedback attached based on the initial budget proposal shared in this thread and we are sharing this in each of the budget threads here in the Cardano forum.
We appreciate that the current Intersect budget proposal and its process will change, plus many specifics remain open (based on the Intersect blog post shared on 7 March 2025). However, we want to contribute our insights to the extent they may continue to apply and be useful for future budget discussions by the community.
If you have any questions about our feedback, please let us know; we’d be happy to provide additional information.
11.03.25_Cardano Budget_CF Position_Committee Memo.pdf (148.9 KB)