{"@context":{"CIP100":"https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#","hashAlgorithm":"CIP100:hashAlgorithm","body":{"@id":"CIP100:body","@context":{"comment":"CIP100:comment"}}},"hashAlgorithm":"blake2b-256","body":{"comment":"Clearly, we need to distinguish between the treasury process as a whole and the subsets that fall under that umbrella: a coordinated budgeting process and, beneath that, a robust procurement management process. These are separate concepts and should be treated as such. I applaud this proposal for raising the point that things are obviously broken.\n\nWe must bring a values-based discussion to the table about the role of the treasury as a whole and the constraints under which it should operate. Then we need a clear discussion about Cardano’s budgeting process, its timeline, and its constraints.\n\nAfter that, we need to discuss procurement. Currently, we have vendors proposing whatever fees, hours, KPIs, and deliverables they wish, and we only have the option to vote yes or no. There is no mechanism for pushback, adjustment, negotiation, or evaluating how one project fits within a broader strategy or overall budget.\n\nProposals are ad hoc and one-off. Voting no leads to Twitter tirades and a minimum of 30 days lost to a slow governance cycle. This is a doomed process.\n\nThe fact that this system doesn’t work has led to the suboptimal outcome that only the largest vendors are receiving funding. I believe this is driven more by risk aversion than by optimal planning.\n\nLet’s call things what they are. This first round of governance was not a success. While it was not a total failure, it has enough flaws that the future of the chain and its projects is threatened. I believe that was the core point of this non-binding Info Action: to raise a hand and say, “Can we at least agree that we have a problem?” That is the first step toward fixing things.\n\nThat, I have to support."}}