The Cardano Ecosystem Budget Process proposes the introduction of 7 domains with capped budgets. This seems wise to me. Each domain should have a steward: - Core Development and Maintenance: Intersect - Applied Research: Intersect - Developer Support: PRAGMA - Marketing, Analysis & Events: Cardano Foundation - Adoption & Ecosystem Growth: Cardano Foundation - Governance Coordination: Intersect - Open Contributions: n/a In my view, this initial setup is too centralized. Each entity should control only a single domain. If Intersect were to control 3 domains, it would effectively control about half of the budget. With all respect, I do not think Intersect would be a suitable governance coordinator. Even Charles said that they failed in this key effort. Stewards should be elected, not appointed via the info action. In my opinion, the threshold for an info action is too low for approving such a significant change. I would prefer to see this system implemented through a constitutional amendment. I also perceive a potential conflict of interest. What if a steward nominated by the Cardano Foundation recommends approving a budget for the Cardano Summit? We all know they do not want to fund the Summit from the Genesis ADA, but rather from the Treasury. The Cardano Foundation might be a suitable governance coordinator, but certainly not an independent steward for marketing and events. I am surprised that IO is not the steward for applied research. They would be a fitting candidate. If IO is excluded from the list due to a potential conflict of interest (given that IO is the largest consumer of the research budget), then I view the involvement of the Cardano Foundation and Intersect in their respective categories in the same light. One of the reasons for this change is the attempt to reduce the burden on DReps. It is worth noting that a steward would still have to process roughly 15–30 proposals. It is a relatively large volume. It is unlikely that a single individual could handle this, given the expectation for 100% performance and high quality. Consequently, the "steward" would likely need to be a team of experts. The question then becomes: who will pay these experts? And that is the problem. Stewards should not be compensated by an entity that also submits its own proposals. If the Treasury is to cover the costs, the expenses should be disclosed before a proposal is approved. After two years, the community has not even been able to reach a consensus on whether DReps and CC members should be compensated. Perhaps the best approach would be for the stewards to be external professionals, experts in their respective fields who have a connection to Cardano but are not affiliated with any specific entity. They could be fairly paid by the Treasury. I am glad this proposal has been put forward and that we can discuss it. The direction is good, but there are still many details that need to be resolved. What are your thoughts on this proposal?