This proposal establishes a formalised budget process framework for the Cardano ecosystem, outlining a five-stage lifecycle from strategic planning through execution and monitoring.
It introduces:
The action is non-binding but signals whether DReps support adopting this framework for future budget cycles.
Assessment: Conditional
Assessment: Strong (with structural caveats)
Assessment: Medium
| Dimension | Score (1–5) |
|---|---|
| Constitutional clarity | 3 |
| Governance quality | 4 |
| Execution credibility | 4 |
| Ecosystem value | 4 |
| Risk balance | 3 |
RCADA recognises the significant effort and progress represented in this Budget Process Framework. Compared to the 2025 cycle, this proposal introduces meaningful improvements in structure, transparency, and accountability. The introduction of KPI-linked proposals, work-package-based budgeting, identity verification, and smart contract-based treasury execution are all strong advancements that align with the principles of responsible treasury governance and long-term ecosystem sustainability.
We particularly support the move toward measurable outcomes, clearer proposal comparability, and enhanced execution safeguards through escrow-style smart contracts and independent oversight mechanisms. These are important steps toward a more mature and accountable governance system.
However, despite these improvements, we have chosen to abstain due to several structural concerns that remain unresolved.
A central consideration in our assessment is the role of Ekklesia within this framework. While we recognise its value as a coordination and signal-gathering tool, its use as a gating mechanism—where proposals require a 67% threshold off-chain before progressing to on-chain governance—introduces a de facto pre-consensus layer. This creates a structural dependency on an off-chain system that is not fully verifiable, not protocol-enforced, and not subject to the same guarantees as on-chain governance.
Although this approach improves efficiency and reduces noise, it also shifts meaningful influence to a layer outside the protocol, where participation levels, stake distribution among active voters, and process visibility may materially affect outcomes. In practice, this means that proposals may be filtered before reaching formal on-chain governance, raising important questions around legitimacy, transparency, and long-term decentralisation.
Additionally, the role of Intersect within this framework remains broad and somewhat ambiguously defined. Intersect operates as framework facilitator, process coordinator, and potential administrator, which introduces a degree of role concentration that warrants clearer boundaries, accountability mechanisms, and dispute resolution pathways.
We also note potential unintended consequences in areas such as the minimum proposal threshold and Net Change Limit (NCL)-driven allocation logic, which may favour larger proposals and introduce distortions in prioritisation outcomes.
Our abstention should not be interpreted as opposition to the direction of travel. On the contrary, we believe this framework represents a strong and necessary evolution in Cardano’s governance maturity. However, as this process may become the de facto standard for treasury coordination, it is essential that its core mechanisms—particularly those influencing proposal selection—meet the highest standards of decentralisation, transparency, and verifiability.
We encourage future iterations of this framework to:
RCADA remains supportive of continued iteration and will actively contribute to improving governance processes that strengthen Cardano’s long-term sustainability and decentralisation.
RCADA’s full vote assessment can be found here: “https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/”