The proposal "Enhancing Efficiency, Transparency, and Community Participation in Intersect" aims to transform Intersect MBO’s operations by addressing critical issues such as lack of transparency, procedural delays, and the exclusion of community and other stakeholders. The initiative is structured into three phases: Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Improvement Proposal. The working team will identify problems, assess their impact, and propose solutions to optimize resources, improve communication, and ensure a more inclusive governance framework—while also suggesting changes to the organizational structure. Expected benefits include increased community trust, more active participation, more representative governance, operational cost savings, and greater community engagement—thus strengthening the Cardano ecosystem in the Voltaire era.

CONTEXT AND RATIONALE: Intersect MBO, with over 630 members, was established to place the community at the center of Cardano’s development and governance, using tools like Govtool to facilitate decision-making (Intersect | Building Together to Drive Cardano Forward). However, it currently faces major challenges affecting its effectiveness and community trust:

• Lack of transparency
• Process delays
• Exclusion of the community and other key stakeholders
• Financial barriers

These issues have led to diminished trust and limited participation—especially concerning in the Voltaire era, where community-driven governance is critical to Cardano’s success.

OBJETIVE: The main objective is to enhance Intersect MBO’s efficiency, transparency, and community participation—ensuring that operations are more effective, decisions are accessible and understandable, and that the community and stakeholders (such as committees and working groups) have an active voice in governance. This will be achieved through a structured approach in three phases: Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Improvement Proposal. This methodology allows for the identification of issues, impact analysis, and development of targeted solutions.

Proposal Structure – Three Phases

Phase 1: Diagnosis (60 days) Description: This phase will focus on identifying and documenting specific issues affecting efficiency, transparency, and community engagement within Intersect MBO. Key Activities:

• Data Collection: Conduct interviews with key members and those who have expressed dissatisfaction, especially regarding exclusion from the Budget Committee and delays in operations.
• Surveys and Forums: Launch community surveys and organize online forums to gather feedback on perceived centralization and lack of transparency.
• Document Review: Analyze internal documents, such as committee structures, budgets, and meeting minutes, to identify gaps in transparency and inclusion.

Expected Outcomes: A diagnostic report detailing identified issues—such as lack of financial data, process delays, and exclusion—focusing on their effects on trust and participation. Rationale: This phase is essential to build a data-driven foundation for the proposal, ensuring solutions are relevant. The exclusion of the Budget Committee and perceived centralization warrant thorough analysis.

Phase 2: Evaluation (90 days) Description: This phase involves assessing the impact of the issues identified in Phase 1 on operational efficiency, community trust, and inclusive governance. Both quantitative and qualitative metrics will be used to prioritize problems and identify areas of greatest impact. Key Activities:

• Impact Analysis: Assess how lack of transparency (e.g., absence of financial audits) affects member trust, using survey data and feedback.
• Process Mapping: Identify bottlenecks in key workflows (e.g., budget processes) to uncover causes of delays.
• Inclusion Assessment: Analyze the level of involvement of the community and stakeholders (e.g., committees and working groups) in decision-making.
• Cost Estimation: Estimate the financial cost of inefficiencies, such as redundant roles, projects, or low-impact events.

Expected Outcomes: An evaluation report prioritizing issues by impact, with metrics such as the percentage of members who feel unheard and estimated inefficiency costs. Rationale: This evaluation will focus efforts on the most critical issues, such as the Budget Committee’s exclusion and centralized decision-making, maximizing the proposal’s effectiveness.

Phase 3: Improvement Proposal (60 days) Description: In this phase, the team will develop and present a set of specific improvement recommendations aimed at increasing efficiency, transparency, and community engagement. These improvements will not be implemented directly but will instead be submitted to the community for approval via a voting process—ensuring they reflect the will of the broader ecosystem. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) will also be defined to track progress. Key Activities:

• Operational Optimization:
  • Review the budget to eliminate unnecessary spending (e.g., redundant projects or events).
  • Consolidate roles and committee responsibilities to reduce overlap.
  • Suggest updates to tools like Govtool to streamline decision-making.
  • Standardize processes, tools, and roles across working groups.
• Improving Transparency:
  • Define mechanisms, templates, and channels to publish monthly financial, decision-making, and operational reports.
  • Establish a communication platform for continuous engagement between Intersect MBO and the community.
• Strengthening Participation:
  • Propose holding regular town halls to gather community feedback and reduce centralization concerns.
  • Use Govtool surveys and votes to include the community in major decisions.
  • Establish frameworks to include committees and working groups in processes such as budgeting for more representative governance.
• Establishing KPIs: * Define KPIs to support timely decision-making. * Create metrics to measure progress transparently and efficiently.

Expected Outcomes: A well-structured improvement plan ready for community voting, including initial tools like dashboards and town halls, and a system of KPIs to guide long-term monitoring. Rationale: This phase turns findings into actionable steps, directly addressing core issues—like the exclusion of the Budget Committee and lack of community voice—while ensuring sustainability and measurable outcomes through KPIs.

The problem to be addressed is the need to improve efficiency, transparency, and inclusion in Intersect MBO operations, as well as its internal structure and processes—particularly regarding the lack of community engagement and participation from other stakeholders. This includes unclear budgeting processes, delays, perceived centralization, and the exclusion of committees and working groups. The proposal also seeks to establish mechanisms to ensure that Intersect MBO fulfills its mission of community-driven governance in Cardano more effectively.

The implementation of this proposal will enhance Intersect’s operations and strengthen community-driven governance in Cardano by improving internal processes and optimizing resources. The proposal focuses on six key areas:

1. More Efficient Processes and Internal Structure Description: Review Intersect MBO’s internal structure and processes to standardize formats (e.g., reports, meeting minutes), working group roles and responsibilities, communication with the community (e.g., official channels, frequency of updates), and other operational elements (e.g., workflows, decision protocols). Tools like AI-powered platforms (e.g., Pipefy) will help optimize time and resources. Beneficiaries:

• Intersect MBO Members: Gain more efficient internal operations, boosting trust in the organization.
• General Cardano Community: Feel better represented and more confident in the ecosystem.

2. Greater Community Trust Description: Implementing regular reports and public dashboards—including financial audits and operational metrics—will ensure the community has access to transparent and clear information. Beneficiaries:

• Intersect MBO Members: Make better-informed decisions.
• General Cardano Community: Build trust through increased transparency.

3. Increased Community Participation Description: Organize regular town halls and surveys to enable the community and other stakeholders to influence governance directly. Beneficiaries:

• General Cardano Community: Gain a stronger voice in decision-making.
• Committees and Working Groups: Become more involved in key processes like budgeting.

4. More Inclusive Governance Description: Include the community, committees, and working groups in decision-making to reduce perceived centralization and ensure decisions reflect collective interests. This also responds to Charles Hoskinson’s call for more community-driven governance. Beneficiaries:

• Committees and Working Groups: Their inclusion in structures like the Budget Task Force (as suggested by @AdamRusch on X) will enhance their impact.
• Other Stakeholders (e.g., Cardano Foundation): Inclusive governance helps reduce tension and align objectives.

5. Resource Optimization Description: Review Intersect’s current organizational structure, budgeting, and project management to eliminate redundancies, reduce expenses, and build a more efficient organization. Beneficiaries:

• Intersect MBO Members: See better resource management and increased confidence in operations.
• General Cardano Community: Savings could be reinvested into initiatives like tech development or educational programs.

6. Alignment with the Voltaire Era Description: A more efficient, transparent, and inclusive governance framework will strengthen Cardano’s transition into the Voltaire era, where decentralized community governance is key. Beneficiaries:

• General Cardano Community: A stronger governance model can attract more developers and users.
• Other Stakeholders (e.g., Cardano Foundation): Benefit from a more robust and decentralized ecosystem.

Demonstrated Value and Return on Investment (ROI)

Demonstrated Value:

• More effective and inclusive governance will improve trust in Intersect MBO and increase participation in Cardano governance—crucial for the Voltaire era.
• Improved governance could attract more users and developers, increasing Cardano’s adoption and network value.
• Including more stakeholders will reduce conflict and foster ecosystem-wide collaboration.
• Transparent and streamlined processes will build greater community confidence.

Return on Investment (ROI):

• Operational Cost Savings: Optimizing operations could reduce costs by 10–15% by redefining Intersect MBO’s internal structure, processes, and expenditures.
• Increased Community Participation: The proposal could boost participation by 20%. With 630 current members, this could mean 126 more active contributors to the ecosystem.
• Impact on Network Value: Increased engagement and adoption may lead to a 5% rise in ADA’s market value, resulting in significant benefits for holders, more transactions, and greater ecosystem growth.

Phase 1: Diagnosis (60 days) Deliverable 1: Diagnostic Report Description: A detailed report documenting the key issues identified within Intersect MBO operations, including (if applicable) lack of transparency, process delays, and exclusion of community and other stakeholders. Contents:

• Results from interviews with key Intersect members.
• Analysis of surveys and online forums collecting community feedback on transparency and inclusion.
• Internal document review (e.g., budgets, meeting minutes, organizational structure) to identify gaps. Tangible Milestone: Publication of the diagnostic report by the end of Month 1, made available via GitBook/GitHub and shared through community channels such as X and the Cardano Forum (forum.cardano.org). Definition of Done: The report will be considered complete when:
• Feedback from at least 100 community members (approx. 15% of Intersect MBO's 630 members) is collected and analyzed.
• At least 5 interviews with key members are conducted.
• The final report is reviewed and approved by the working team.

Phase 2: Evaluation (90 days) Deliverable 2: Evaluation Report Description: A report assessing the impact of the issues identified in Phase 1, prioritizing those that most affect operational efficiency, community trust, and inclusive governance. Includes both quantitative and qualitative metrics, such as the percentage of members who feel unheard and the estimated cost of inefficiencies. Contents:

• Impact analysis of transparency gaps (e.g., lack of financial audits and its effect on trust).
• Process mapping to identify bottlenecks (e.g., delays in budget processes).
• Evaluation of process optimization using AI tools like Pipefy and others.
• Assessment of community and stakeholder participation (e.g., committees, working groups) in decision-making.
• Estimated cost of inefficiencies (e.g., redundant projects or low-impact events). Tangible Milestone: Publication of the evaluation report by the end of Month 3, available on GitBook/GitHub and distributed through community channels. Definition of Done: The report will be considered complete when:
• At least 3 key issues are analyzed (e.g., transparency, delays, lack of inclusion).
• Specific metrics are defined (e.g., % of dissatisfied members, estimated inefficiency costs).
• The report is reviewed and approved by the working team.

Phase 3: Improvement Proposal (60 days) Deliverable 3: Proposed Improvement Plan Description: A detailed document outlining a set of actionable recommendations to address the issues identified and evaluated, focused on enhancing efficiency, transparency, and community participation. This plan will not be implemented directly but submitted to the community for approval via a voting process. Contents: Proposed improvements across:

• Operational Optimization
• Transparency Enhancement
• Community Participation Strengthening
• Suggested KPIs for future implementation.
• Justification and expected benefits of each improvement, such as increased trust, active participation, and inclusive governance. Tangible Milestone: Publication of the proposed improvement plan by the end of Month 5, available on GitBook/GitHub and shared via community channels. Definition of Done: The plan will be considered complete when:
• At least 5 concrete improvements are developed (covering efficiency, transparency, and participation).
• Clear KPIs are defined to track future implementation.
• The plan is approved by the working team and ready for submission to the community.

Cost Breakdown (in USD and ADA): Project Leader: 580 hours at $48/hour = $27,840 USD = 55,680 ADA Participation & Communications Analyst: 500 hours at $42/hour = $21,000 USD = 42,000 ADA Process & Data Analyst: 500 hours at $38/hour = $19,000 USD = 38,000 ADA Standardization & Documentation Specialist: 380 hours at $30/hour = $11,400 USD = 22,800 ADA Total Estimated Cost: $79,240 USD = 158,480 ADA

Team Composition and Roles

1. Project Lead (1 person) Responsibilities: Coordinate the entire team, manage deadlines, supervise report development, ensure continuous community communication, and lead the community voting process. Additional tasks: Oversee outreach and engagement efforts, such as promoting surveys, online forums, and the town hall.

2. Participation & Communications Analyst (1 person) Responsibilities: Conduct interviews with key members, design and manage community surveys, organize forums and town halls, manage voting through Govtool, and contribute to drafting participation reports and social media updates (e.g., X posts).

3. Process & Data Analyst (1 person) Responsibilities: Map and analyze Intersect MBO’s internal structure and operational processes, identify bottlenecks, analyze qualitative and quantitative data (from surveys, interviews, internal documents), estimate inefficiencies and potential savings, propose operational improvements, and define KPIs.

4. Standardization & Documentation Specialist (1 person) Responsibilities: Consolidate and synthesize collected data, draft all official deliverables (Diagnostic Report, Evaluation Report, Proposed Improvement Plan), design standardized templates (e.g., report formats, working group manuals), and establish official communication tools (e.g., update calendar on X).

Team Roles and Responsibilities (by Phase) To achieve the deliverables across the three proposal phases, the following roles will carry out specific responsibilities:

1. Project Coordinator Phase 1: Diagnosis (60 days)

• Form the working team and assign roles.
• Coordinate interviews, surveys, and online forums.
• Supervise initial data analysis and process mapping.
• Promote activities via X, Cardano Forum, and Intersect’s website.
• Hold weekly team meetings for progress tracking.
• Oversee drafting and finalization of the Diagnostic Report. Phase 2: Evaluation (90 days)
• Coordinate impact analysis and detailed process mapping.
• Supervise evaluation of standardization efforts and community engagement.
• Share interim updates with the community.
• Continue organizing weekly meetings.
• Oversee drafting and finalization of the Evaluation Report. Phase 3: Improvement Proposal (60 days)
• Coordinate development of the Improvement Plan.
• Organize the town hall and community vote.
• Publish voting results.
• Disseminate the plan and results through X and the Cardano Forum.
• Conduct final meetings with the team to close the proposal.

2. Participation and Communications Analyst Phase 1

• Conduct 8 interviews with key members, including Budget Committee members.
• Design and manage surveys (target: 150 responses, including standardization questions).
• Organize 2 online forums (one for Intersect members, one for the general community).
• Collect feedback from community channels (X, Cardano Forum).
• Assist with drafting the Diagnostic Report. Phase 2
• Analyze feedback from surveys and forums to evaluate impact.
• Evaluate community engagement (e.g., % of members attending events).
• Assess current communication tools (e.g., X posting frequency).
• Assist with drafting the Evaluation Report. Phase 3
• Design the town hall structure (agenda, slides).
• Manage the Govtool voting process (setup, monitoring).
• Collect feedback on proposed standardizations during the town hall.
• Prepare the final participation report for the community.

3. Process and Data Analyst Phase 1

• Map Intersect’s internal structure (e.g., organizational chart, committee roles).
• Map operational processes (e.g., budgeting, decision-making workflows).
• Analyze survey data (e.g., % dissatisfied with transparency).
• Identify inconsistencies (e.g., formats, working group structures).
• Estimate initial inefficiency costs (e.g., time wasted due to redundancy). Phase 2
• Quantify problem impacts (e.g., time lost to inefficient processes).
• Conduct detailed process mapping (e.g., inter-committee communication flow).
• Evaluate standardization gaps (e.g., confusion due to format inconsistency).
• Estimate potential cost savings.
• Evaluate participation of committees and working groups in governance. Phase 3
• Propose operational improvements (e.g., eliminate redundancies, optimize workflows).
• Suggest standardizations (e.g., templates, working group roles).
• Define KPIs for tracking improvements (e.g., 100% standardized reports).
• Analyze voting participation rates (e.g., % of eligible voters engaged).

4. Standardization and Documentation Specialist Phase 1

• Consolidate data from interviews, surveys, and initial mapping.
• Draft the Diagnostic Report, including findings on standardization.
• Create first drafts of standardized formats (e.g., reporting templates). Phase 2
• Consolidate impact analysis and detailed mapping.
• Draft the Evaluation Report, including standardization impact.
• Iterate on templates based on community feedback. Phase 3
• Design final standardized formats (e.g., templates, working group manuals).
• Establish official communication mechanisms (e.g., update calendar on X).
• Draft the Proposed Improvement Plan.
• Prepare town hall presentation materials.
• Document and publish voting results.

David Tacuri Electoral Software Engineer / Lead Full Stack Developer

David has actively participated in over 30 electoral processes in Ecuador, gaining extensive knowledge of electoral procedures and election law. He also has solid technical expertise in multiple programming languages and databases. As a passionate advocate of blockchain technology, he has delivered numerous presentations on blockchain and Cardano at schools and universities in Ecuador and Paraguay.

David is currently working on blockchain-based governance projects such as the "Blockchain Voting System" and "Digital Voter ID", which are documented and publicly available at https://democracyonchain.com.

He has also participated in several Intersect workshops, including the 2024 Constitutional Workshop in Costa Rica, and was a signatory of the Cardano Constitution during the official signing event in Buenos Aires.

This proposal is designed with a long-term vision of continuous improvement. Once the recommendations are implemented and initial results are observed in the short term, it is essential that the Cardano community—particularly Intersect MBO members and working groups—take ownership of the ongoing evaluation and refinement process. It is recommended that a follow-up assessment be conducted within 6 months of implementation to evaluate progress and identify areas for continuous improvement. This process will be community-led and outlined in the final deliverables of this proposal, including suggested metrics, KPIs, and governance mechanisms to ensure sustainable impact over time.

• Users express concerns about transparency and call for clearer processes, with mixed views. (https://www.reddit.com/r/cardano/comments/15q40ia/have_you_joined_or_are_you_considering_joining/). -Cardano Foundation Blog Post: Announces joining Intersect MBO to advance governance, supporting community-driven initiatives. -Highlights exclusion of Budget Committee, sparking discussion on transparency and inclusion. (https://x.com/jrv97_velazquez/status/1902831374458933504) -There are also several X (formerly Twitter) accounts that are highly critical of Intersect.

The main dependency of this proposal is the adoption of the recommendations outlined in the Improvement Plan during Phase 3 by the Cardano community. Since the improvements will not be implemented directly by the team, but rather submitted for community voting, the success of the proposal depends on approval and engagement from both Intersect MBO members and the broader Cardano community.