Cardano’s 2027 budget proposal would let funding stewards seek grants too

Cardano’s proposed 2027 budget process would let three institutions help design how funding requests are assessed while remaining eligible to seek money from the same spending domains.

The proposed Cardano Ecosystem Budget Process, or CEBP, published by Intersect on Oct. 28, would assign stewardship roles to Intersect, PRAGMA and the Cardano Foundation across six areas of spending. Delegated representatives, or DReps, would retain approval of the stewards, budget distribution and every treasury withdrawal. The institutions’ influence would come earlier, through the plans and assessment processes that help shape those votes.

For independent applicants, the balance depends on how conflicts are handled and how much funding remains available through Open Contributions, a proposed route that would let anyone approach DReps without a steward. The published framework leaves that route’s allocation and common procedures for assessing steward-related funding unspecified.

In its Oct. 30 update, Intersect said feedback remained open ahead of a tentative Nov. 10 submission of the overall concept. The process would run as a trial in 2027 only if DReps approve.

Each proposed steward would help develop its domain’s strategy, recommend a dollar-denominated budget cap in coordination with other stewards, and define how applications are collected and assessed. It could submit proposals itself or support others in bringing them to an on-chain vote.

Delivery oversight would also depend on the structure chosen for each proposal. The framework allows different arrangements, from teams retaining their own administration to more coordinated delivery contracts.

These responsibilities could influence which needs are prioritized, how competing requests are compared and what information reaches voters. DReps would still decide whether the resulting proposals receive funding.

Intersect presents the approach as a response to overloaded DReps facing numerous, hard-to-compare requests with insufficient expert guidance. Common presentation standards and domain expertise could make those decisions easier. The same assessment role makes the treatment of an institution’s own funding proposals consequential.

The proposal expressly allows a steward to receive funding from its domain, provided that funding is transparently declared and accompanied by safeguards. An award would still require DRep approval.

The published framework promises a common public code of conduct in the planned information action, a proposal seeking DRep support for the concept. Common recusal, independent assessment and appeals procedures for funding proposals involving stewards remain unspecified in the published text.

There are existing, narrower provisions. Intersect’s Growth & Marketing Committee working terms, which remain subject to ratification and adjustment, require potential conflicts to be disclosed to committee leadership. They specifically address reviews involving members’ working relationships and allow sanctions for code violations.

The Budget Committee grievance process covers conflicts and concerns about process fairness, with escalation through Intersect’s leadership to its board. The procedure applies specifically to that committee’s activities and stakeholder interactions.

Existing payment oversight applies after funding approval. The existing 2026 budget FAQ says the five-member independent Oversight Committee checks administrative disbursements, with funding selection outside its remit.