Overview - A Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget

2025 Cardano Budget Proposal - A Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget

Collated by the Intersect Cardano Budget Committee on behalf of all Intersect Committees and contributing working groups

Version 0.2 - Draft February 10th, 2025

Abstract

This budget proposal is a living document, shaped by the collective input of the Cardano community. Nothing has been decided, and every element—from funding allocations to the Net-Change-Limit—remains open for discussion and refinement. Over the coming weeks, proposals will continue to evolve based on community feedback, market conditions, and on-chain approvals.

This document is a work-in-progress and is released for community consultation. All figures, timelines, and proposals are indicative and subject to change based on community feedback, market conditions, and on-chain approvals. Nothing herein is final.

We extend our deepest thanks to the 100+ members who have contributed to this process so far. Your insights, expertise, and commitment to Cardano’s future are invaluable. Now, we invite the broader community to join this conversation, build on ideas, challenge assumptions, and help refine a budget that truly serves the ecosystem. Your participation will ensure that Cardano’s financial planning remains transparent, inclusive, and forward-thinking.

Let’s shape this together.


1. Executive Summary

This document presents a holistic draft and current work-in-progress of a 2025 Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget, facilitated by the Intersect Budget Committee. The Budget Committee consists of Intersect members elected by their peers, with the first elections held in October to fill 50% of the seats. The remaining 50% will be elected in April this year. It is responsible for gathering and consolidating budget requests from the seven Intersect committees:

  1. Technical Steering Committee

  2. Open Source Committee

  3. Cardano Product Committee

  4. Cardano Civics Committee

  5. Growth & Marketing Committee

  6. Membership & Community Committee

  7. Cardano Budget Committee

2025 Budget Overview

This draft budget proposal outlines the indicative financial requirements put forward by Intersect’s committees and members. It serves as a foundation for community consultation and refinement, ensuring that funding priorities align with the needs of the broader ecosystem. By incorporating input from a diverse range of stakeholders through our committees, the proposals capture multiple perspectives and provide a transparent basis for discussion and decision-making on budget allocations.

This draft budget reflects input from well over 100 members across committees and working groups. It is now released for broad community review and refinement. All figures are indicative and subject to change based on ADA price fluctuations, community feedback, and on-chain approvals.

2. Intersect as a member-based organization

Intersect was incorporated on December 8th, 2023 as a not-for-profit corporation located in Wyoming, USA.

As a not-for-profit, member-based organization, Intersect focuses on supporting and championing Cardano’s governance and technical development, acting as a steward for the network’s growth and decentralization. It helps to facilitate the rollout and evolution of Cardano’s on-chain governance, supports the delivery of Cardano’s product roadmap, and fosters collaboration among ecosystem participants, including all ADA owners and those interested in Cardano—particularly developers, stake pool operators (SPOs), delegated representatives (DReps), and other stakeholders.

It operates as a membership-driven entity, meaning its direction and priorities are influenced by its members, which include individuals and organizations involved in Cardano’s development and governance. Intersect currently has 1,800 paid members, including individuals and enterprises. In addition, there are over 2,700 associates, those who have joined for free, to contribute to working groups and hear the latest developments as they happen. Membership at Intersect is always open, and new members are welcome to join and support various initiatives, including the budget and roadmap.

At its core, Intersect represents the collective voice of its members, helping shape Cardano’s future so that it reflects the contributions of those who actively drive its success.

Last year

Intersect is just over a year old, with 2024 marking our first full financial year. Our end-of-year accounts are currently being prepared and will be ready in March - submitted on-chain, including complete financial records and Wyoming state filings.

In December 2024, we published our end-of-year report, highlighting everything members have achieved so far.

Intersect as an Administrator and financial reporting

As the Constitution outlines, any treasury withdrawal should include a named Administrator and apply an appropriate audit charge to ensure financial accountability and transparency. This audit charge has been designed to cover the cost of Intersect performing its role as the administrator of Cardano Development Holdings and as supporting Intersect committees and members in advancing Cardano.

This audit charge is the current model for funding Intersect. As a not-for-profit, this charge covers the operating costs of running a member-based organization like Intersect—unlike traditional open-source foundations, which typically rely on high annual membership fees.

Important to note, this funding approach remains open for community feedback. Alternative models, such as a flat funding request to support Intersect in fulfilling its mission, could be explored if there is broad support for a different structure. As a not-for-profit, Intersect is mandated to ensure that surplus funds are used to strengthen the ecosystem, enhance member services, and support the broader Cardano community.

Financial reporting

Audit and reporting commitments:

  • Quarterly financial reports detailing budgetary positions and fiat/ADA reserves - submitted on-chain.

  • Annual audit by a globally certified auditor.

  • Transparent tracking of surplus fiat/ADA and, depending on community approval.

Cardano Development Holdings

The Cardano Development Holdings (CDH) was established in the Cayman Islands as a crypto-friendly jurisdiction to fund and facilitate the ongoing maintenance, development, and growth of the Cardano ecosystem. It serves as the primary recipient of direct funding from the Cardano treasury and can also accept donations from external sources designated for Cardano’s development. All assets owned by the CDH, are administered by Intersect under governance oversight.

Intersect acts as the administrator of the CDH, ensuring that all treasury funds and other assets are managed in accordance with its strict mandate. Third parties and suppliers interact with CDH exclusively through Intersect, creating a counter-party relationship, facilitating contract execution via our open procurement process, feedback loops and approval via our member-led committees or decisions made through Cardano’s on-chain governance actions.

As administrator, Intersect ensures that funds are allocated and used effectively through established procurement and financial oversight processes (for more information, please refer to the Intersect website under Operational Services)

Practical benefits of an intermediary legal vehicle for treasury funds

Using an intermediary entity like CDH to receive treasury funds provides key benefits for accounting, legal clarity, and liability management, including:

  • Regulatory and legal clarity – As a legally incorporated entity, CDH provides a structured approach to holding and managing funds, ensuring compliance with financial and regulatory obligations.

  • Separation of treasury and operational responsibilities – Distinguishing fund ownership (CDH) from fund administration (Intersect) reduces financial risk exposure, and improves transparency.

  • Liability management – CDH isolates financial liabilities, ensuring that contractual obligations, vendor payments, and other financial transactions do not create undue exposure for the broader Cardano ecosystem.

  • Efficient accounting and reporting – An entity for receiving and disbursing funds simplifies financial records, making audits and financial oversight more structured and transparent.

  • Facilitates third-party engagement – Since third parties and suppliers engage with CDH through Intersect, all contracts and financial obligations are managed through a structured, committee-led governance process.

  • Strategic jurisdictional benefits – The Cayman Islands was chosen as the incorporation jurisdiction due to its well-established legal framework for international financial entities, favorable regulatory environment for decentralized ecosystems, and strong financial services sector.

Given these benefits, other budget proposals and Administrators outside of Intersect may also consider establishing similar legal vehicles to improve accountability, reduce risk, and ensure regulatory compliance when managing treasury allocations.

3. Consultation phases

Phase 1

In October 2024, the Budget committee, along with all other committees at Intersect, opened the first consultation phase to gather feedback on what a budget for Cardano should include, how it should be managed, and other topics important to the Cardano ecosystem.

The consultation period included hosting over 15 open community calls (for both members and non-members), where representatives from the Budget Committee and other Intersect committees shared their ideas and recommendations. Additionally, weekly calls were held for delegated representatives (DReps) and the broader community to provide insights into the current approach and process.

In parallel, the Budget committee launched a survey to gather input on community development priorities for the coming year (and beyond). The survey aimed to collect both quantitative and qualitative data on various budget-related topics, with the goal of understanding priorities for the 2025 budget process facilitated by Intersect and identifying ways to better support member-led decision-making. Over 200 respondents provided valuable perspectives to guide the process.

The results and key learnings from phase one, including any pivots, suggested:

  • Present multiple budgets for community consideration rather than a single, larger budget proposal. Accordingly, each funding track (or “bucket”) should have its own budget Info Action to be voted on by the ICC and DReps. Once a funding track (as an Info Action) is ratified by the ICC and DReps, corresponding Treasury Withdrawal Actions can follow.

    • For example, if there are five funding tracks, there will be five Info Actions and at least five Treasury Withdrawal Actions submitted on-chain for community consideration.
  • The Net-Change-Limit should not exceed Treasury income for the same period. For instance, in 2025, the Treasury is projected to grow by approximately ₳350 million. A budget proposal submitted on behalf of members and committees at Intersect should not exceed this amount. Furthermore, the Net-Change-Limit should leave ample headroom for budgets that are not part of any initial Intersect proposal to be submitted on-chain.

  • Emphasize radical transparency in accounting and auditing of Treasury funds, including the use of smart contracts and on-chain verifiability wherever beneficial.

  • Carefully consider and document how any surplus or unspent ADA can be reutilized, reinvested, or returned to the Treasury.

    • Note: Any solution must comply with the interim and/or delegate-approved Constitution (whichever is in effect as per CIP-1694).

Phase 2 - February to May 2025

Following phase one’s initial discussions and idea-gathering, phase two focuses on detailed off-chain consultation and proposal refinement - encapsulated by this document, supporting material, and community engagement. This phase spans at least four weeks and is intended to build consensus. Phase two comprises two key stages:

Four-week community socialization

  • Where: Cardano Forum, virtual meetings, X Spaces, events, and other community-driven platforms.

  • What: During this period, draft proposals are collaboratively refined, with special attention given to improving the budget and expected outcomes.

  • Submission: of the Net-Change-Limit—determining how much can be withdrawn from the Treasury in a given period—its final value and associated metadata may be submitted for on-chain voting immediately after this six-week socialization window.

GovTool Proposal Discussion

  • How: Depending on community feedback from the first few weeks, specific proposals will be moved to GovTool in the Proposal Discussion section. Here, they undergo proper metadata formatting and further community scrutiny through polling tools and a dedicated comments section.

  • Goal: Ensure that each proposal is thoroughly vetted, with opportunities for continued feedback and iterative improvements.

Total Timeline

Combining the initial six-week socialization with the subsequent GovTool discussion phase, off-chain consultation is expected to last at least six weeks before any budget proposal is submitted on-chain. Based on polling via GovTool and community sentiment, this timeline may be extended if the community requests additional refinements or if more time is needed to reach a consensus.

As we progress through Phase Two, the Budget Committee will coordinate with the committees to hold periodic votes to determine whether proposals are ready to be submitted on-chain as Info Actions. Based on these votes, the committee will make recommendations to Intersect to raise them on their behalf.

Intersect’s role in phase two

During phase two, Intersect’s Budget Committee serves as the primary facilitator of community engagement. By actively listening, the committee gathers and documents feedback from channels such as the Cardano Forum, virtual meetings, and X Spaces, then uses these insights to refine proposals, clarify budgets, and adjust expected outcomes.

Throughout the process, Intersect will communicate updates and explain the rationale behind any changes. Finally, once broad consensus emerges, the Committee prepares proposals for on-chain submission via GovTool, ensuring proper metadata formatting and guiding the community toward consensus on critical parameters like the Net-Change-Limit.

4. Management of funds

The Budget Committee emphasizes that all current figures and allocations are dynamic and provisional. Proposals will be iteratively refined based on quarterly financial reports, ADA price movements, and—critically—community input - ensuring alignment with ecosystem priorities as they evolve. A Net-Change-Limit, budget proposal/s, and subsequent Treasury withdrawals require on-chain approval by DReps and the Interim Constitutional Committee, providing multiple checks and balances before any budget becomes “operational”.

Key operating principles:

  1. Transparency: All financial transactions will be audited by at least one third-party, and quarterly reports will be published for community review.

  2. Flexibility: Budgets may be adjusted based on ADA price volatility and community feedback.

  3. Accountability: Funds will be released via smart contracts tied to milestones, ensuring deliverables are met before further disbursements. Tracking surplus ADA and, depending on community approval, its reallocation in subsequent budgets or return to the Treasury.

  4. Inclusivity: All initiatives and line items in the budget will be open for bidding through a transparent and inclusive procurement process.

Cardano’s first Net-Change-Limit

To maintain the sustainability and stability of Cardano’s treasury, a Net-Change-Limit has been suggested, which would, if approved, set the constitutional and democratic mandate for the amount of ada that can be withdrawn from the Treasury over the 2025 period.

Between January and December 2025, spanning approximately 73 epochs, the total indicative withdrawal limit has been suggested at 350 million ADA. This figure aligns with the projected treasury growth for 2025, estimated at approximately 350 million ADA, positioning it as a balanced budget framework - funding the ecosystem for 2025 and leaving net Treasury resources unchanged from 2024 levels.

The intent is to ensure that expenditures remain sustainable while enabling strategic investment in ecosystem growth. This figure remains subject to further review and on-chain approval as the ecosystem seeks to balance prudence with a forward-looking approach to treasury allocation.

This approach aims to:

  • Balance ecosystem growth with responsible treasury management

  • Ensure funds remain available for ongoing and future initiatives

  • Provide clarity and predictability for all stakeholders

The Budget Committee has prepared the draft Net-Change-Limit metadata, which can be found here review and here for feedback. In the coming days, we will publish it on GovTool.

5. Work packages

These can best be thought of as procurement briefs capturing the requirements that Cardano and institutions (including, but not limited to, Intersect) need vendor support to deliver. Following the necessary on-chain approvals, these proposals can come to fruition through a variety of contractual agreements. All delivered by members of Intersect through an open, transparent, and inclusive procurement process.

The procurement process should ensure that Treasury funds are allocated based on a structured evaluation matrix that considers the capability to deliver against the Committee Requirement Document (CRD), the value of the proposal, and a realistic delivery timeline aligned with ecosystem expectations.

Additionally, the procurement process will incorporate transparency and feedback loops, providing the community with visibility into proposals and enabling members to review and assess proposals based on their expertise and capabilities.

Once contracts are awarded, the Delivery Assurance team will oversee execution, ensuring that contractual obligations are met through service level agreements (SLAs) and risk management processes. This includes maintaining ongoing feedback loops with the committees that commissioned the work on behalf of the Cardano ecosystem.

Steps from budget proposal to awarded contract

  1. Budget proposal and on-chain approval

  2. A budget proposal is developed, detailing funding requirements for grants and work packages.

  3. The proposal undergoes community consultation and is submitted for on-chain approval by DReps and the ICC.

  4. Procurement process

  5. Committees create and approve Committee Requirement Documents (CRDs), outlining scope, deliverables, and evaluation criteria, etc

  6. An open and transparent procurement process allows Intersect members and vendors to submit proposals.

  7. Submissions are evaluated by the committees based on capability, value, and alignment with ecosystem expectations.

  8. Proposal review and selection

  9. Community feedback loops ensure transparency and allow stakeholders to assess proposals.

  10. Reviewers are selected from the community based on their skillset and allocated proposals for review.

  11. Proposals are reviewed against structured evaluation criteria, ensuring fair and merit-based selection.

  12. Contracts are awarded by the committees to the most suitable vendors, subject to due diligence checks.

  13. Contract execution and delivery assurance

  14. The awarded vendors enter into service agreements (SLAs) with clear deliverables and milestones.

  15. The Delivery Assurance team oversees execution, monitors progress, and mitigates risks.

Ongoing feedback loops ensure alignment with the commissioning committees and broader ecosystem goals.

You can read more about the delivery assurance function here.

6. Budget Bucket proposals

Below is a summary of the budget requests from each committee. All figures are indicative and subject to change based on community feedback and on-chain approvals. In total, the current figures indicate a budget of ₳262,757,544 for 2025. As a result, some budgets reflect a six-month plan.

Cardano Core Budget

  • Technical Steering Committee: ₳99,304,400

  • Open Source Committee: ₳5,885,000

  • More details here

  • You can provide feedback here

Cardano Research Budget

  • Cardano Product Committee: ₳ 26,961,364

  • More details here

  • You can provide feedback here

Cardano Governance Support Budget

  • Cardano Civics Committee: ₳11,270,500

  • Cardano Budget Committee: ₳1,900,000

  • More details here

  • You can provide feedback here

Cardano Growth & Marketing Budget

  • Growth & Marketing Committee: ₳20,394,540

  • More details here

  • You can provide feedback here

Cardano Innovation Budget

  • Membership & Community Committee: ₳77,526,800

  • More details here

  • You can provide feedback here

Funding Intersect

  • Intersect is seeking ₳20,000,000 to cover a 12 month period (Jan-Dec) to fund its role as the administrator, eliminating the need for a 5% Delivery Assurance fee. This funding will fully support the execution of our 2025 roadmap, covering all operational costs and enabling us to strengthen our capabilities, expand our initiatives, and enhance the value we provide to our members and the broader Cardano ecosystem.

Additionally, see here for the work-in-progress master spreadsheet, which provides full transparency into the current numbers on a single Google Sheet.

Approach to ADA price

Between October 2024 and January 2025, Intersect’s committees began identifying areas to include in the budget, sharing preliminary findings and proposals with the community. During this period, all costs were initially estimated using an ADA-to-USD rate of $0.30, with the understanding that this rate would be updated before any on-chain submission.

As you’re all aware, ADA’s price fluctuated over the Christmas period, climbing above $1.00 at one point, and dipping to a low of $0.61 in February. Given this volatility, we are recommending that the budget use a $0.50 ADA-to-USD rate.

Keynotes for community review:

  • The proposed Net-Change-Limit of 350M ADA is subject to adjustment and, ultimately, on-chain approval following community feedback and market conditions.

  • Quarterly reviews will ensure alignment with ecosystem priorities and financial sustainability.

  • Ada price will be determined by the markets at the point of sale, identified during the procurement process.

7. How to get involved and share your feedback

Over the next six weeks, there will be plenty of ways to participate and make your voice heard. Whether you want to engage casually or get more involved, here’s how you can shape the ideas and proposals:

  • Add feedback on the Cardano Forum – Each proposal has its own thread, making it easy to track discussions and provide input. We anticipate this being the best way to log your feedback.

  • Join online meetings and calls – The budget committee will host a series of online discussions throughout February and March, with dedicated sessions on specific proposals.

  • Comment on social media – Share your thoughts on X (Twitter), LinkedIn, and other platforms.

  • Join X Spaces – Take part in live discussions and contribute in real time (keep an eye on our X account!

  • Attend in-person events (TBD) – More details will be shared soon, but expect a global spread.

Online calls

Throughout February and March, the budget committee will hold various online calls, including sessions focused on specific proposals. These calls will be a chance to ask questions, share perspectives, and get a deeper understanding of the budget and governance process.

You can RSVP and set your calendars here: Cardano Budget Process · Events Calendar

8. Closing

The 2025 budget proposal represents a significant milestone in Cardano’s governance evolution, but it remains very much a work-in-progress. The process ahead is one of open dialogue, iteration, and refinement, with the ultimate goal of ensuring that funding allocations align with the ecosystem’s priorities and long-term sustainability.

We encourage all ada holders to participate—whether by expanding or refining an idea, providing constructive feedback, challenging assumptions, or proposing improvements. A robust and well-informed debate will lead to stronger, more effective proposals that better reflect the collective wisdom of the community.

Through respectful discourse and shared commitment, we can shape a budget that serves the best interests of the ecosystem and strengthens Cardano’s future.

Let’s continue building together.

The MCC Budget is evolving daily, and currently published MCC Budget descriptions and figures are outdated.

We are working on an MCC internal poll so that we can share the latest numbers and explanations. It may be more correct to post this post after an internal MCC vote, but I decided to post it so as not to unnecessarily consume DRep’s resources.:pray:

MCC Budget は毎日進化しており、現在公表されているMCC Budgetの説明と数値は古いものです。

最新の数値と説明の共有できるように私たちはMCC内部投票に取り組んでいます。このポスト自体もMCC内部投票後に行うほうが正しい可能性がありますが、DRepの皆さんのリソースを不要に消費しないようにポストすることにしました。:pray:

Understanding the process is dynamic, could we still please add dates? At least for the community review and feedback windows. Thank you.

1 Like

While reading this Overview, I learned that Cardano Development Holdings (CDH) is the primary recipient of direct funding from the Cardano treasury and operates in the Cayman Islands. Intersect administers these assets under a strict mandate.

This detail caught my attention, as the entire Intersect documentation only briefly mentions the CDH. I have a few questions:

  1. Who are the directors of the CDH, and what are their legal obligations?

  2. Technically speaking, can the CDH touch the assets?

  3. In case of a legal dispute, who has jurisdiction over the funds? Can the Cardano community effectively enforce accountability?

  4. I’d like to see the contracts of the CDH, and the contract mandating Intersect to manage the assets. Who are the lawyers who set up the contracts?

I appreciate any clarification on these points. Thank you!

3 Likes

The proposed budget assumes a fixed $0.50 ADA/USD rate, despite recent price fluctuations. While I understand the need for conservative planning, this approach raises a few questions:

  1. If ADA’s market price rises to $2 or higher, wouldn’t this result in an unnecessary oversupply of funds, potentially leading to inefficiencies?

  2. Since actual spending occurs at market rates, why not also withdraw from the treasury at market rates at the time of each disbursement, rather than using a fixed $0.50 rate?

  3. What happens if ADA depreciates below $0.50?

Given these considerations, wouldn’t it be more efficient to denominate the budget in USD and withdraw ADA from the treasury at market rates at the time of withdrawal? This would ensure that funding aligns dynamically with ADA’s value, avoiding the risks of both over- and under-allocation.

Looking forward to clarification on these points. Thanks!

2 Likes

I like the value for the assumed rate, because it gives a good buffer in the event of a price decline. If the price of ADA is higher, leftover ADA can always be sent back to the treasury.
If an entity decides to spend that ADA regardless (against the will of the community), they risk not getting the required funds the next budget round, so I think abuse of this won’t be much of an issue (I really hope I’m not wrong here).

The consitution states that a budget needs to be in ADA, so that’s the reality now and if we want this differently, we would first need to update the constitution.

There’s a risk of not everything getting done what was meant to be (this risk also exist when prices are high btw). We can always vote for an earlier new budget along the way (and net change limit if necessary).

Funny how people do deep dives into the CF (a foundation with transparency reports, public financial statements, available figures and a long list of achievements) but are about to hand over 350M ADA to CDH with very little research whatsoever.

4 Likes
Which ADA rate do you think should be adopted?
  • 0.50
  • 0.55
  • 0.60
  • 0.65
  • 0.70
  • 0.75
  • Other
0 voters
Please select all that apply regarding your thoughts on the Intersect MBO Budget of 20m ADA:
  • The amount is appropriate.
  • The amount should be increased.
  • The amount should be reduced to 15-19m ADA
  • The amount should be reduced to 10-15m ADA
  • The amount should be reduced to 05-10m ADA
  • The amount should be reduced to 00-05m ADA
  • The current level of disclosure is appropriate.
  • The disclosure level should be increased, but not necessarily to the same level of detail as other committees.
  • The disclosure level should match the level of detail of other committees.
  • The disclosure level should be higher than that of other committees.
0 voters
What do you think should be the overall budget amount?
  • 300m ADA or more
  • 263-300m ADA
  • 263m ADA
  • 200-263m ADA
  • 150-200m ADA
  • 100-150m ADA
  • 50-100m ADA
  • 50m ADA or less
0 voters

Marketing Budget_POLL 20,394,540ADA - Cardano Growth and Marketing Budget Proposal - #7 by YUTA_Oishi

Innovation Budget_POLL 77,526,800ADA - Cardano Innovation Budget Proposal - #15 by YUTA_Oishi

Governance Budget_POLL 13,170,500ADA - Cardano Governance Support Budget Proposal - #36 by YUTA_Oishi

Core Budget_POLL ₳105,304,400 - Cardano Core Budget Proposal - #5 by YUTA_Oishi

Research Budget_POLL ₳27,211,304 - Cardano Research Budget Proposal - #19 by YUTA_Oishi

1 Like

I’ll post a comment from a 18mADA DRep Ranket :pray:


  1. Issues with Budget Discussions

    • Seeking opinions on a budget without detailed breakdowns is not meaningful.
    • Only nominal figures are listed, making proper evaluation difficult.
  2. Considerations for the Budget Committee

    • The T and η parameters have increased the effective T.
    • As a result, governance actions proposing a reduction to 10% have emerged, which need to be addressed.
  3. Challenges with Rate Proposals

    • DReps lack awareness of the baseline budget.
    • Without examples such as the annual budgets of the three organizations before Intersect was established or IOG’s independent development budget, most proposals will likely focus on reductions.
  4. Proposed Budget and Rate Approach

    • A 10% cap proposal has some support.
    • A rate setting of 0.75–0.7 USD could still achieve the 10% goal.
    • To prevent system paralysis, a maximum budget of around 200 million ADA should be considered.
2 Likes

Don’t you mean ρ (rho) here?
Η (the capital of η, eta, but it was the first letter of a sentence, so that’s that… :laughing:) isn’t really a paramater, but just the amount of blocks minted in a given epoch divided by the expected amount of blocks (21,600); which also has a minor influence on reserve depletion hence treasury income, but not so big as ρ and τ.

This is with still a NCL of 350M, right? To allow for other budgets or an extra budget in the case of extreme price downfall.

First I want to thank everyone for all the time and effort they have put in with the budget work over the past year - thank you, I know it has taken a lot from all of you for getting us this far and I appreciate it.

For the most part I am very happy with the majority of the budget, around 75-80% of it which says we have made great progress from where we started.

Overall budget concerns I’d like to voice / double down on after thoroughly diving in:

  • ADA price pegged to $0.50 is too low. I realize that we are supposed to price items in ADA, but since all payouts are calculated relative to fiat prices, it makes the most sense to calculate in fiat every time there is a payout to be made, then pay the ADA equivalent. Catalyst did this for many rounds and it is entirely possible to do. This will likely be the best way to preserve the amount of ADA in the treasury, and there is no reasonable justification for paying out contracts based on ADA amount quoted if all this does is grant windfalls to contractors. We are here to pay for services based on a fixed fiat price, not to extract value from the treasury :thinking:

  • Some items listed do not have a timeline or duration assigned. Without this I can’t justify allocating any resources if there is no idea of completion.

  • Extreme lack of clarity in the IntersectMBO budget, ~17 Million ADA is unaccounted for in expenditures. I already think administration costs for Catalyst at 10 million ADA are high, and I have much more trust in them. Also, anything that involves attracting membership to Intersect should be an Intersect budget item, not a “Membership & Community” item. I’d suggest having a “Community” only committee, as Membership should be a part of Intersect operations like it would be with any other organization. Membership items should also be covered by the missing ~17 million ADA in the IntersectMBO budget.

  • After the serious flaws exposed in Catalyst with the latest power grab by the Cardano Foundation in the last round of Catalyst funding, changes need to be made. Until Catalyst implements the necessary fixes they propose with a majority of the 10 million in admin costs going to Catalyst improvements, I’d recommend we reduce each Catalyst fund by 10 million ADA. Once large voting entities can no longer determine the outcome of Catalyst for all voters, then I’d consider increasing the amount in Catalyst funds again. So, 3 funds of 10 million ADA + 10 million ADA in admin would be 40 million ADA allocated for Catalyst. With the price appreciation of ADA, this will be worth more anyways and I am okay leaving this priced in ADA for fund allocation.

  • I am okay with all of the Product & Technical steering budgets. I just want to make sure we have clarity and solid understanding on what we are getting from IOG and other vendors as deliverables. So for example, if we are paying for Leios, we should be getting this as a useable feature by the end (which I am fully supportive of). It is also unclear if we are paying twice on some items, like Leios under “Academic Innovation” and Leios again under “Technical Steering”, costed at about the same price for each item.

For the initial Cardano roadmap, we didn’t get Bashaw fully delivered but we will now be continuing to pay for work on this. We are also to be back paying IOG for $10 Million worth of work, when there should be some accountability in that if there is a delay in transitioning Voltaire to the community and IOG still has to work on Cardano until they have a budget, that would be a Voltaire delivery gap in my opinion. Regardless, I am okay with paying IOG the needed funds since they are acting in good faith and we do want them to continue to build for Cardano. I just want there to be clear requirements and deliverables for all parties for future funding so that we are not in the same situation later on.

I have some serious issues with CC-0001-25 - Constitutional Committee Compensation. Since we have unelected members on the Constitutional Committee board, I do not think those members should be compensated at all. 6000 ADA per member per month is also way too high of compensation for any CC member. We should not be supplanting the entire monthly income of a CC member for their service. 3000 ADA per month for an elected CC member is a reasonable amount, and this should be reviewed annually based on the fiat price of ADA.

I also have issues with CC-0010-25 DRep Compensation and CC-0011-25 DRep support definition. I think that we should operate a year without any DRep compensation as we will not be getting an incredible amount of work with proposals requiring a 100K ADA deposit as a financial roadblock for governance actions. When we have some experience as DReps and what this looks like, we can revisit in a year. Without any evidence or practical research, how can we possibly decide this? Will we be railroaded into a decision like only the top DReps should be compensated, further pushing us to an even more centralized model than we already have? I think we should be lowering the cost to become a DRep to 50 ADA and increasing participation in governance before we start paying ourselves for work that hasn’t been done yet and needs to be done first.

CR-0003-2025 - Stipends for Committee Members How is this calculated? Paid monthly? How many members? I believe Intersect Committee members should be paid, I just want to make sure this is fairly calculated. 500 ADA per month seems a bit low for the amount of work put in if 6000 ADA per month is going to CC members.

  • There are items I would cut or reduce based on the fact that I don’t think they will deliver value and they are overly expensive:
    BC-0002-2025 - Audit Working Group
    BC-0005-2025 - Budget Summit
    MCC-0001-2025 - Community Hubs/Membership (Should be in IntersectMBO operational budget)
    CC-0009-25 - CC Handover Ceremony
    CC-0010-25 - DRep Compensation
    CC-0011-25 - DRep Support Definition
    CC-0012-25 - DRep Education and Training
    CC-0018-25 - Ratify Constitution (was already done, why is this on here?)
    CC-0020-25 - CC Elections (is this for elections in 2025 or for 2024? If it is for past expenses, then no. If it is for 2025 then yes)
    Public Relations and Media - What does the description even mean? Hire PR staff, pay coindesk to write nice articles about Cardano? Seriously unclear for the amount of money requested, and seems like it will not accomplish the intended goal.
    Partnerships and Collaborations - Who decides is a good partner for Cardano? It is unclear how this will be used effectively, need more information.
    Influencer Marketing - RFP Influencer Directory - Paying influencers is a waste
    Influencer Marketing - Paying influencers is a waste
    Marketing Education & Support - Could be wasteful or beneficial depending on a few factors - who exactly gets to participate and who is teaching? For this price we should have sessions recorded and materials available for anyone to access and use to make Cardano’s marketing better.
    Cardano Reporting - Messari - Is this even necessary? If we haven’t used it before, how will it be worth the money? Seems like a waste.

I am of the position that we should be fiscally conservative with our spending in order to protect ADA holders and the treasury, especially in the first year of governance. Trust needs to be built and the treasury should exist for the future, not just today. I do support the need for building and for continuing to cement Cardano as the most advanced blockchain from a research and technology perspective, which is why I am fully in support of the Product, Technical Steering, and Open Source budgets. I am very hesitant to spend heavily on bureaucracy, when we already have proof that in fiat governments this leads to bloat and corruption. There is no need for us to repeat the mistakes of countless governments, so we need transparency with this budget where we are still lacking.

2 Likes

I guess the argument would be that one is for research and/or education while the other is for development.

and workload, I suggest.

And would the resources exerted by DReps to carry out their duties during the supposed experimental year be reimbursed? I think the role of DReps is just as relevant as the CC and if we are looking to compensate CCs, DReps must be incentivized too. However, we should pay attention to the structure and ensure it is one that would encourage decentralized participation. In addition, we should look at how double incentivization could be prevented. For instance, in cases where an individual is a CC member, a DRep, and an SPO.

:100:

Thanks for putting this together.