Cardano Budget Process Framework (facilitated by Intersect)
25 SPOs voted · 3 with a rationale · 14 changed their vote · 2 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
- YesRationale
I vote YES on the Info Action titled “Cardano Budget Process Framework (facilitated by Intersect)” (e9693ed6b6465b...98fa#0).
It is an Info Action that seeks to outline a formal description of the Intersect Budget Process Framework for 2026 and future cycles until otherwise amended, administered by Intersect. As the rationale section states, this proposed framework is offered “to facilitate an ecosystem budget process for 2026”. The operative word here being “an” and not “the”. A singular process and not the definitive process. This leaves room for other governance actors to operate outside of the process outlined in this proposal, as should be their prerogative in a truly open and decentralised system.
While I understand concerns expressed regarding the phrasing of the NCL utilisation in Stage 3 of the proposal, namely that “Proposals will then be allocated in rank order, up to the available Net Change Limit (NCL)” I feel that there is a level of misunderstanding here. At first glance it does sound as though this particular Framework outlined here intends to hoover up the entirety of the remaining NCL, I think it is more of a case of unfortunate wording. It outlines the limit but fails to explain the likelihood of that much funding being approved. It could very well be the case that only 50% of the NCL gets utilised, in which case, this entire statement is redundant. I feel it has been pre-emptively included to avoid “what if more than the NCL gets approved” questions rather than offering the likelihood of that actually happening as a counterpoint.
I think this process is an improvement upon the process executed by Intersect in 2025 and does honestly seek to reduce procedural ambiguity and increase accountability, both of the proposers and of Intersect as an administrator. With a number of Treasury Withdrawal actions having been submitted in 2026 already, it does demonstrate that projects are not tied to only applying through the proposed Intersect Budget Framework.
- YesRevotedHistory
Earlier votes
Yes5mo agoSuperseded
- AbstainNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesRevotedHistory
Earlier votes
Yes5mo agoSuperseded
Yes5mo agoSuperseded
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesRationale
In researching this, I found there were several things improved upon previous processes.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
In researching this, I found there were several things improved upon previous processes. It seems a healthy update.
With that in mind, I vote yes.
- YesNo rationale
- YesChangedHistory
Earlier votes
Abstain6mo agoSuperseded
- YesChangedHistory
Earlier votes
Abstain6mo agoSuperseded
- YesChangedHistory
Earlier votes
Abstain6mo agoSuperseded
- YesChangedHistory
Earlier votes
Abstain6mo agoSuperseded
- YesChangedHistory
Earlier votes
Abstain6mo agoSuperseded
- YesChangedHistory
Earlier votes
Abstain6mo agoSuperseded
- YesChangedHistory
Earlier votes
Abstain6mo agoSuperseded
- YesChangedHistory
Earlier votes
Abstain6mo agoSuperseded
- YesChangedHistory
Earlier votes
Abstain6mo agoSuperseded
- YesChangedHistory
Earlier votes
Abstain6mo agoSuperseded
- YesChangedHistory
Earlier votes
Abstain6mo agoSuperseded
- YesChangedHistory
Earlier votes
Abstain6mo agoSuperseded
- YesChangedHistory
Earlier votes
Abstain6mo agoSuperseded
- YesChangedHistory
Earlier votes
Abstain6mo agoSuperseded
- NoRationale
No, no, no - once again, no. Monopolizing the budget is a terrible idea. It was a bad idea last time, and it is a bad idea now. No. We know where this leads - 90% of the funds will go to 9,000 promises from IOG (with a very low completion rate), and the remaining 10% will go to “Raid the Treasury”-style proposals, which are largely useless for the network. No.