Intersect and ecosystem stakeholders suggest a new approach to align Cardano’s 2030 ambitions and the resources needed to deliver them.

 

Cardano's first two budget cycles established the foundations for decentralized treasury funding and tested various approaches to how proposals are developed and assessed.

Going into 2027, Intersect, working alongside the Cardano Foundation and in deep collaboration with ecosystem stakeholders such as our members, Input Output Global, the DRep Council, and delivery partners, suggest a more coordinated approach to the challenges of the last two years. In collaboration with the ecosystem partners set out below and using various contributions and research from ecosystem experts, our ambition is to align annual objectives, improve spending coordination and ultimately provide DReps a better foundation for decision making.

We call this the Cardano Ecosystem Budget Process (“CEBP”) and we would like to give the Cardano community an opportunity to provide feedback on its direction. Our plan is to adjust the CEBP according to feedback received and then to seek formal on-chain approval from DReps. If DReps approve, we envision that this CEBP will run for a trial year in 2027 so that DReps can assess its success for iteration and renewal in subsequent years.

2027 is rapidly approaching and a new NCL and a new round of treasury withdrawals with it. While we already started to collect feedback from stakeholders and DReps, we aim to collect further feedback from the broader community and to - tentatively - submit an info action incorporating this feedback in the second week of November 2026, targeting 10 November 2026. With two years of learnings behind us, and with 2027 on the horizon, without a coordinated approach being approved by DReps by the end of the year, we are likely to miss this opportunity to improve Cardano’s budgeting process for DReps for 2027. This means that we are likely to see a repeat of the challenges of the last two years and DReps will face the same pressures of a large volume of uncoordinated proposals, unsolicited feedback requests, duplicated expenditure, lack of expert assessment, delivery challenges and time pressure.

We’re asking DReps and the community for feedback on the approach and framework here, whilst the proposed domains, stewards, and any allocation proposed by them will be brought forward following feedback, polling, and confirmed in a second series of Info Actions.

Feedback can be shared on DRepTalk

Building on what we've learned

Over the past two years, Cardano has made significant progress in establishing decentralized treasury governance. Both the 2025 and 2026 budget cycles brought many learnings across the ecosystem. Additionally, the work of the Ecosystem Funding Working Group, under the Intersect Cardano Product Committee, feedback collected by the Intersect Cardano Budget Committee as well as independent research funded by the Cardano Foundation, while differing in the details, agreed on the need for a more structured, category based budget process. In 2026, DReps frequently voiced their frustration with the sheer volume, complexity and lack of comparability of funding requests. Many community experts expressed similar views during the Roundtable Talk on 21 September 2026.

The resulting information overload, combined with a lack of domain-expert guidance, poses a significant risk of capital misallocation. If we want to achieve the goals set out in Cardano 2030, we believe improvements are necessary. Simultaneously, we want to preserve as much of the open, transparent and on-chain nature of Cardano governance as possible.

Our goals with the CEBP that we set out in more detail below are therefore to:

1. Reduce the number of treasury withdrawal actions which DReps need to review.
2. Improve the quality and comparability of such actions, by anchoring them in a shared strategy.
3. Provide easily accessible expertise for all DReps.
4. Improve accountability for treasury withdrawals.

The CEBP, if approved by DReps, would run for a trial of one year in 2027, with a renewal and improvements possible for 2028.

An overview of the CEBP

At a high level the CEBP that we propose entails three core changes to how Cardano has allocated treasury funding so far:

1. Defining clear annual objectives to achieve Cardano 2030.
2. Dividing the NCL into seven budget categories.
3. Assigning a responsible facilitator for each category.

Everything that follows is based on one key design principle: Facilitation does not equal gatekeeping and every spending decision, alongside the signoff on the annual objectives, the NCL Domain distribution and the facilitators remains with the DReps. As there is no direct on-chain mechanism by which to enforce this framework, DReps also have the power to effectively move to a different model at any time.

An introduction to Domains and Stewards

We suggest dividing ecosystem needs into seven categories (each a “Domain”). With one exception, each Domain will have a responsible facilitating institution assigned to it (each a “Steward”). The Stewards' core responsibilities that we envisage are (i) outline a 2027 domain strategy based on Cardano 2030, (ii) suggest the USD budget cap allocated to their Domain, in alignment with the other Stewards, (iii) define the process by which proposals for their Domain are collected and assessed, (iv) submit proposals in their Domain themselves or support proposers to submit proposals to the on-chain vote and (v) enforce performance by proposers, subject to proposal structure (i.e. self-administration vs. more traditional delivery contract).

For example, an infrastructure domain steward’s task would be to help develop a comprehensive view of Cardano's infrastructure needs, covering core infrastructure, ongoing maintenance, multiple node clients, and other critical dependencies. This work would necessarily involve various community teams, the node diversity workshops and further experts to be comprehensive. The goal is that every Domain comes with the processes that most efficiently fit its needs (e.g. such as open requests for proposals, expert evaluations, Ekklesia voting, etc.). What will remain common to all Stewards is the expectation that they provide clear information to DReps in a standardised format, so that DReps can easily compare one proposal to another.

A Steward’s process may be lighter-touch or more hands-on depending on the specifics of a Domain. This also applies to the involvement of Stewards in the budget development and funding administration. While one Steward may only help develop and coordinate a broader budget with individual teams maintaining their own administration arrangements, another Steward may operate under a more streamlined delivery model.

The intent is to improve coordination while preserving flexibility in how work is funded and delivered, so that a diverse range of organizations can continue to contribute.

This also raises an important question about who develops the Domain budgets and who subsequently benefits from them. Acting as the Steward of a Domain does not create any entitlement to funding from said Domain. But it also does not exclude such funding, insofar as it is transparently declared and comes with suitable safeguards. We must recognize that the organizations with the expertise to develop and coordinate a Domain may themselves be well placed to deliver some of the work within it. Ultimately, DReps retain their role in approving those withdrawals through on-chain governance.

Finally, the Stewards will also commit to a public common code of conduct (which will be included in the planned Info Action) and should collaborate on other common issues, such as a reporting standard for funded proposals.

Suggested Domains and Stewards for 2027

For the upcoming 2027 calendar year, we propose the following domains and their respective stewards, recognizing that over the coming weeks further feedback and discussion will help shape how these stewardship arrangements operate: