You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
| Role of the Treasury Withdrawal | Treasury withdrawals must be made pursuant to a previously approved budget. They provide greater granularity by defining the withdrawal schedule, the addresses where the funds go and actual amounts to be withdrawn against budget. |
44
-
| Intersect administrative bandwidth | Multiple withdrawals will place increased overhead internally around drafting, coordination and submission dates. In an ideal scenario, withdrawals are submitted on the same day (or same epoch) to support NCL considerations and unified delivery windows, however this will also present a volume of work for the ICC. |
45
-
| Builder ecosystem expectations | Builders and vendors rely on timely, predictable funding to complete their initiative/s. Lack of clarity on funding runways throughout multiple governance actions can create uncertainty - whether it’s by stalling hiring, OPEX & CAPEX decisions, or more specific activities such as venue bookings could work against building reputational trust. |
46
-
| Governance load & voter fatigue | More granular voting increases discretion but risks lower turnout. Non-voting, active DReps count against yes votes, risking inability to achieve the 67% threshold to pass. Other governance actions may be live at the same time, adding to the voting load on DReps and the ICC. Intersect may re-submit and restructure lower turnout treasury withdrawals if deemed appropriate. |
47
-
| Net Change Limit (NCL) friction | The current NCL will conclude before many projects proposed within Intersect’s budget will complete (i.e contracts continue into 2026). Some of the options detailed further down are designed to work well within the current NCL of 350m ada by issuing treasury withdrawals based on 2025 and 2026 (noting that as an ecosystem we need to set a new 2026 NCL). |
48
-
| Risk management vs. speed | Robust oversight is essential, yet excessive processes can slow ecosystem momentum. For all cases, Intersect will apply rigorous oversight controls to ensure that any funds withdrawn are disbursed based on milestone acceptance and controls to stop payment for non-delivery. |
49
-
| Operational overhead | Governance actions each require a ₳100k deposit, hours of diligent drafting and technical resources to submit. |
| Role of the Treasury Withdrawal | Treasury withdrawals must be made pursuant to a previously approved budget. They provide greater granularity by defining the withdrawal schedule, the addresses where the funds go and actual amounts to be withdrawn against budget. |
44
+
| Intersect administrative bandwidth | Multiple withdrawals will place increased overhead internally around drafting, coordination and submission dates. In an ideal scenario, withdrawals are submitted on the same day (or same epoch) to support NCL considerations and unified delivery windows, however this can also present a volume of work for the ICC. For option E, due to the volume of governance actions, Intersect cannot support directly, and vendors will have to submit their own governance action.|
45
+
| Builder ecosystem expectations | Builders and vendors rely on timely, predictable funding to complete their initiative/s. Lack of clarity on funding runways throughout multiple governance actions can create uncertainty - whether it’s by stalling hiring, OPEX & CAPEX decisions, or more specific activities such as venue bookings could work against building reputational trust. |
46
+
| Governance load & voter fatigue | More granular voting increases discretion but risks lower turnout. Non-voting, active DReps count against yes votes, risking inability to achieve the 67% threshold to pass. Other governance actions may be live at the same time, adding to the voting load on DReps and the ICC. Intersect may re-submit and restructure lower turnout treasury withdrawals if deemed appropriate. |
47
+
| Net Change Limit (NCL) friction | The current NCL will conclude before many projects proposed within Intersect’s budget will complete (i.e contracts continue into 2026). Some of the options detailed further down are designed to work well within the current NCL of 350m ada by issuing treasury withdrawals based on 2025 and 2026 (noting that as an ecosystem we need to set a new 2026 NCL). |
48
+
| Risk management vs. speed | Robust oversight is essential, yet excessive processes can slow ecosystem momentum. For all cases, Intersect will apply rigorous oversight controls to ensure that any funds withdrawn are disbursed based on milestone acceptance and controls to stop payment for non-delivery. |
49
+
| Operational overhead | Governance actions each require a ₳100k deposit, hours of diligent drafting and technical resources to submit. |
50
50
51
51
Intersect’s task here is challenging. Ultimately, it is to ‘thread the needle’. As a community, we need to align on an approach that is achievable with Intersect’s current operational capacity and honors & respects Cardano’s decentralized ethos. Builders need enough assurance to start work and commit to their full proposals. DReps need to know that their voice has been reasonably heard, and that there is an acceptable level of consent (even though not everyone will get what they would ideally want). All the while keeping governance workloads sustainable, and most importantly, delivering the next generation of features for Cardano.
0 commit comments