Treasury withdrawals...
Over the past week or so I’ve been speaking with committee members, vendors, the community at large, and many others here on X about how Intersect should approach Treasury Withdrawals in relation to our current Budget Info Action. It’s a nuanced and challenging topic, with competing needs and views from every direction. There are pros and cons at every turn, and ultimately some form of compromise will be necessary.
Bear with me on this post...
First, we have what I believe is a majority of DReps expressing a desire for greater granularity at the Treasury Withdrawal stage. I get it. While the off-chain process via Ekklesia had excellent participation, it shouldn’t outweigh the importance of on-chain governance. A single Budget Info Action followed by a single withdrawal puts too much weight on the off-chain process and leaves DReps with an ultimatum, and I’ve always disliked ultimatum-style governance.
On the other end of the scale, submitting 39 individual governance actions places a huge burden on the ICC, who take their responsibilities seriously (as they should), and would require 3.9 million ada in deposits. That’s something Intersect cannot currently support given our tight runway.
So, if a single withdrawal is unpalatable and 39 is inefficient and unrealistic, where is the middle ground? Most feedback has pointed to grouping into around five Treasury Withdrawals, either by category or by Ekklesia approval bracket.
I also think that, longer term, Intersect can help streamline how off-chain processes feed into on-chain decision-making. But right now, Intersect is dominating the budget cycle, understandably so in year one, and while we can be forgiven for trying, it doesn’t mean we need to force a full budget through without adjustments. In the future, I’d like to see Intersect offer a simple budget path as one of many options. Notwithstanding the direct-to-chain route without any coordination.
Second, there’s growing discussion around how much to request from the Treasury in 2025. Timelines help us plan, but they can also reduce these decisions to cost alone, when this is really about delivering value. The NCL is important, but we also need to acknowledge this is year one. For Intersect and for many vendors, it’s about building credibility, not just delivering outputs but demonstrating responsibility.
That’s why we’re now considering what six months of funding looks like for each proposal, enough to get things underway, and staggering the remainder for later. But this needs to be balanced carefully.
Last, we have real and valid needs to support vendors who are poised to deliver game-changing features for Cardano, directly on the protocol and more broadly through initiatives like events. These teams need confidence that, once funding is approved, they can deliver without hitting cliff edges. I know how difficult it is to run Intersect on a three-month runway, and that’s our reality right now. Building serious value takes time. If we don’t get this right, we risk a situation where teams focus more on lobbying than building, and that’s not how we attract the best organizations or deliver on Cardano’s potential.
So, what do we do? I’ve been asked directly, what’s the plan? But the truth is, it shouldn’t be my plan alone. I may be Executive Director, but I see my role as lead coordinator. Intersect must act with our members and the broader ecosystem in mind.
Here’s where we are likely heading, and what we’ll put to a poll on Ekklesia in the coming days so we can make a decision with some stats to back it:
1. Treasury Withdrawals grouped by category (e.g. core protocol, marketing) or by Ekklesia support brackets (e.g. 50 to 60 percent, 60 to 70 percent, etc.)
2. The first set of withdrawals would fund around six months of delivery, roughly 175 to 190 million ADA, acknowledging some proposals require more capital upfront to start work, pay deposits for venues etc, and build capacity
3. After the first few months of delivery, we would submit the remaining Treasury Withdrawals aligned to the original budget proposal. These would serve as a second opportunity for on-chain approval. This approach gives us a clear path of continuity, while still respecting governance and compliance with the NCL
I want us to move forward, whether that means approving the budget and its withdrawals to fuel Cardano’s next chapter, or revisiting the approach if DReps believe that’s necessary. What matters is that we take this step together, grounded in compromise and shared responsibility.
Balancing these needs are hard, but a necessary pursuit to move Cardano forward.