- Why is this budget called “Innovation” and not “Community”? That is confusing as f. Only parts of it have some loose connection to “innovation”.
- Why should services that Intersect wants to provide to its members be paid by the Cardano treasury? Shouldn’t a members-based organisation do that by their membership fees?
- Catalyst has already received millions of funding through their own scheme (a ridiculous conflict of interest, but
) in https://projectcatalyst.io/funds/10/catalyst-systems-improvements and https://projectcatalyst.io/funds/11/catalyst-systems-improvements-discovery. Did they explain why they now need funding again for the same things – especially Hermes and Alternative Voting Mechanisms which are explicitly among the projects already funded?
4 Likes
Thank you so much 
- To be honest, I personally think it’s better to move the Community Hub to the Marketing bucket. We’re currently waiting for the discussion in the Community Hub WG to reach a consensus, so please wait a little while.
- I think this is a valid feedback. MCC Budget v3.9.5 was approved by MCC yesterday, and I think it will be reflected in the overall spreadsheet soon, but the membership benefits have been removed.
- This is also a valid question. Adam Dean and Danny/Kriss have been talking about this overlap etc in X. Obviously it is not appropriate to have DRep track all of the X conversations. I asked the Catalyst team yesterday to include the X conversations in the spreadsheet and update it, so please wait a moment
Oh, I think the Community Hubs also fit here. After all, all the onboarding and education stuff and in a way also Catalyst are also community things.
What does not fit is just the title of the whole budget. Almost nothing of this is “Innovation”. “Innovation” would be things like Leios, Peras, a new reward sharing scheme, … – the things that are in the “Research” budget.
I would leave the community hubs here and just rename the whole budget “Cardano Community Budget”.
1 Like
Thank you, This bucket was previously called the Community Grant Bucket.
Catalyst has always called itself the “Innovation Engine,” so it may have been renamed the Innovation Bucket. (I don’t know exactly how this happened…)
Catalyst is certainly more than 97% of the budget, and if Catalyst is the right word for innovation fund, then naming it the Innovation Bucket might not be wrong.
However, I personally think the original name “Community Grant Bucket” is easier to understand…
1 Like
MCC Budget v3.9.5 was approved by 7 out of 10 MCC voting members, This will probably be reflected in the overall budget sheet very soon, but I thought I’d share it here to save DRep folks some time
MCC Budget v3.9.5 : [Public]MCC Budget - Google Sheets
Changelog: v3.9.4 ➞ v3.9.5
v3.9.6 is also currently voting and you can see its details in the same spreadsheet.
Community Hubs
The Community Hub Working Group has been launched to redefine this item. The amount will remain the same until the discussions in the Community Hub Working Group progress. The Community Hub Working Group is open to the public and anyone can join.
Education Programs
This category has not faced significant negative feedback. Due to the restructuring of Membership Support, the Intersect Town Hall has been moved to this category, leading to an increase in its allocation.
Membership Support
The $100,000 allocated to Membership Support lacked sufficient explanation. We removed it.
The $20,000 allocated for Intersect Town Hall, which can broadly be considered an educational initiative, has been moved to section 2, “Education Programs.”
Community Grants
Catalyst: Both on Discord and the forum, Catalyst received the most positive feedback. We have decided to maintain its current funding.
MCC led grants: A majority of votes on the Cardano forum were in favor of reducing its budget. We have reduced its budget by approximately 40%.
1 Like
Thanks for the update @YUTA_Oishi
1 Like
・Community Hubs: We need clearer KPIs and their target values. This is currently under discussion in the Working Group, and we are monitoring the situation.
・Education programs:There is a need to reconsider what kind of education MCC provides and what the cost is reasonable. This is currently being discussed within MCC (as projects such as the Civic Commission, Catalyst and many others already provide education).
・Catalyst: We need to explore the 10mADA in more detail.
・MCC Community Grants:This too needs more details added.
Innovation Bucket Feedback from Japan’s DRep Ranket (https://x.com/Satoshi15121937)
He has provided a lot of feedback, which I have translated and compiled.
I recommend asking him directly if you have any questions.
Catalyst Budget Allocation: Proposed Adjustments for Community Support
Current Plan
- Three funding rounds are planned for Catalyst.
Proposed Adjustments
-
Reduce from 3 rounds to 2 rounds
- Due to past performance and the increasing complexity of onboarding.
-
Limit funding per round to 20 million ADA
- Ensures responsible allocation while maintaining impact.
-
Reduce the number of partner categories
- This should be addressed within the current budget.
-
Handling of the third round (if not executed)
- Carry forward the budget to the next cycle or refund it to ensure transparency and community trust.
Rationale
- From a proposer’s perspective, more funding rounds are preferable.
- From a holder’s perspective, reducing unnecessary allocations is a prudent approach.
- This reduction strikes a balance, ensuring fiscal responsibility while maintaining Catalyst’s effectiveness.
MCC Budget v3.9.6 was approved by 7 out of 10 MCC voting members, meeting the 2/3 asynchronous approval threshold.
MCC Budget v3.9.6 : [Public]MCC Budget - Google Sheets
Changelog: v3.9.5 ➞ v3.9.6
Community Hubs $658,400 → $688,400 + Changes to description and ROI
The Community Hub Working Group has been launched to redefine this item. The amount will remain the same until the discussions in the Community Hub Working Group progress. The Community Hub Working Group is open to the public and anyone can join.
1 Like
Thank you for the hard work @YUTA_Oishi and to everyone else taking the time to read, review, and comment.
The Innovation/MCC budget is challenging but digestible. I agree with @HeptaSean about the title of this Proposal found here. It seems we are still pursuing the bucket methos and if that’s the case, then perhaps there is a way to add which committees compose of the bucket and percentage. It’s also been shared that the committees struggled to coordinate and collaborate on the funding requests which may explain some discrepancies, duplications, and/or omissions.
While reviewing the MCC budget proposal I noticed that there are 4 suppliers listed however there are 6 hubs in the Intersect discord. I hope the Japan and LATAM Hubs will remain part of the 2025 Hubs and Intersect. If they have decided to end operators or supply hubs, is it possible to get the reason and date of this request?
The other four hubs suppliers are listed as “Previous Suppliers”. I believe they are the current suppliers and would like to continue, is this correct? As these hubs opened at different times, is it possible to add those dates(I just found them zooming and scrolling) and perhaps beneficial to link the hub program along with each hubs details and growth. Perhaps Japan and LATAM are remaining in the program but are not in need of funding support. Is this correct? For line items and requests that are a continuation of an existing program, I would also recommend adding last years funding allocation and access to the contracts and expenses so that these can be audited before final sub mission of the proposals.
I’m struggling to connect Community Hubs to the Innovation bucket, unless it should be the MCC bucket. I hate to stall conversations because of titles and misunderstandings of the bucket/committee classification system but I think this may be assisting with the confusion.
I’m sure there are differences between the HUBS budget request to drive membership and the Membership item Grow and Support Intersect Membership, which is a separate line item that is there to support the overall proposal and items found in MCC-0001-2025. The ROIs are confusing to me.
The expense is listed but there isn’t a breakdown that is easy to grasp.
I am aware that the Marketing WG was previously part of the MCC and is it’s own separate committee now but is it possible that there is n ow some items that are funding more than once, or are better together?
The Community Led Events under the GM, nice one, align with the MCC hubs and are also mentioned as part of the ROI. Even the Regional Tech events support this geographical and regional based approach. In addition, the Regional Tech Events description has (Ecosystem and Industry Hackathon). I’m still struggling with the items that are listed as ROI and how they will be calculated. “Content and Email Collection” is our return. What do we do with that? Does it belong to the treasury or intersect or the 3rd parties that win the contracts to do these things?
Industry Events comes with 6 tickets and community travel fund, supported by Line 6, 4.7M ada Regional Tech Events. I may be completely wrong here and if I am, then I defer to someone else to verify.
Considering so much of this last section is related to the new committee, I will paste this there as well.
Overall, is it possible the entire budget, each bucket and committee, either individually and collectively, have been written the way we have seen companies and groups write catalyst proposals in the past? It would make sense and it’s not really that surprising or upsetting when I think about it that way. We’ve been conditioned for around 5 years, some less, to work in catalyst this way.
Regarding Growth and Marketing, I cannot locate the budget ID numbers for the items and perhaps others could review these areas of interest and see if there isn’t an option that does two things; build and audit. Let’s go. I wonder if there isn’t a different way to allocation some of these funds. In Community and Digital marketing, we have a lot of companies and people that already do this, are good at it, and we’d save a lot of unnecessary expense of energy if we reversed the process. It may also allow some committee members or those involved to reduce any risk of Conflict of Interest or nepotism, the normal stuff we’ve discussed for several years.
I would like to leave this post here and also cross post in the Growth & Marketing Proposal channel or link it and also the main budget post. This committee was part of the MCC and now that the total allocation to catalyst has been reduced, it should be moved back to where it belongs so that the community and dreps can help get the budget approved. Or set Catalyst aside.
Regarding Catalyst, instead of putting the entire amount in the MCC, I believe it is better fit to go into several bucket budgets, would have more success in getting approved, and produce better results and more innovative solutions. Put marketing back where it was, and add the Open Ecosystem part of catalyst to it. RPG to Civics or another, Open Dev to Open Source, and some to Tech/Product. This works better, it creates more opportunities to connect with one another, and increases the synergy. I can provide more specifics if there’s interest or if anyone else agrees, feel free to add onto ofr expand.
Catalyst has been a little too difficult to Manage since Fund 4, and then there was that large delay. That was around March, 2021. It was a Zoo then. Can we try something different?
1 Like
Request for this budget to be accessible to grassroots communities https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6R5VDQWi0A
1 Like
Thank you, I shared the feedback on catalyst to catalyst wg and on community hub to community hub wg
Discussions about the Community Hub are currently being held from a zero-base perspective. It is likely that the objectives of other committees will overlap, but to what extent this will happen is still unknown. Discussions are also being held about what the existing Hub will become.
Currently, the Community Hub has elements of the GMC, MCC, OSC, and CCC. It may be possible to distinguish these and incorporate them into a separate Budget, but this may be a little difficult. This can be considered once the discussion in the WG has progressed a bit further. I agree that it is likely to be easier to understand if it is classified into the Marketing bucket.
I think maybe Catalyst and the Community Hub could help with grassroots efforts.
1 Like
Thank you very much.
[quote=“YUTA_Oishi, post:32, topic:143046”]
Discord here Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.
Discussions about the Community Hub are currently being held from a zero-base perspective. It is likely that the objectives of other committees will overlap, but to what extent this will happen is still unknown. Discussions are also being held about what the existing Hub will become.
Currently, the Community Hub has elements of the GMC, MCC, OSC, and CCC. It may be possible to distinguish these and incorporate them into a separate Budget, but this may be a little difficult. This can be considered once the discussion in the WG has progressed a bit further. I agree that it is likely to be easier to understand if it is classified into the Marketing bucket.
[/quote] It’s definitely going to be tricky to separate these elements into distinct budgets, but I think a more in-depth discussion could reveal clearer divisions. Let’s keep an eye on how it develops.
Really marketing/communications should be #1 priority
Thanks for sharing!
We collected feedback on budget items from Japanese DRep and IOG members and Intersect committee members.
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)
I had a quick glance, and I think I liked what I saw. It’s good to know that your thoughts are deeply in line with the DReps sentiment. Good job putting this together.
When can we expect or where can we find the 2024 CF financial report? @Cardano-Foundation