{
  "@context": {
    "CIP100": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#",
    "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm",
    "body": {
      "@id": "CIP100:body",
      "@context": {
        "references": {
          "@id": "CIP100:references",
          "@container": "@set",
          "@context": {
            "GovernanceMetadata": "CIP100:GovernanceMetadataReference",
            "Other": "CIP100:OtherReference",
            "label": "CIP100:reference-label",
            "uri": "CIP100:reference-uri",
            "referenceHash": {
              "@id": "CIP100:referenceHash",
              "@context": {
                "hashDigest": "CIP100:hashDigest",
                "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm"
              }
            }
          }
        },
        "comment": "CIP100:comment",
        "externalUpdates": {
          "@id": "CIP100:externalUpdates",
          "@context": {
            "title": "CIP100:update-title",
            "uri": "CIP100:uri"
          }
        }
      }
    },
    "authors": {
      "@id": "CIP100:authors",
      "@container": "@set",
      "@context": {
        "name": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name",
        "witness": {
          "@id": "CIP100:witness",
          "@context": {
            "witnessAlgorithm": "CIP100:witnessAlgorithm",
            "publicKey": "CIP100:publicKey",
            "signature": "CIP100:signature"
          }
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "authors": [],
  "body": {
    "comment": "I vote “NO” on the budget proposal of 7.5M ada for community builders. While this proposal may seem well-intentioned on the surface, it is lacking in a number of areas. It appears to be a reactionary proposal, hoping to address a perceived shortcoming of the Intersect-led budget process and offering a bundled proposal on behalf of several community development proposals that may lack the governance action deposit to submit their own individual proposals.\n\nHowever, in doing so it has created an overlap whereby some proposals now feature in multiple budget proposals and causes unnecessary ambiguity for DReps voting on them. It has also become apparent during off-chain discussions that one of the projects included in this particular proposal has previously expressed that they did not wish to appoint Intersect as the administrator for their budget proposal. This in turn raises questions around the level of communication that may or may not have taken place between the proposer and those that they claim to represent before the submission of this proposal.\n\nFinally, while the proposal provides ample supporting evidence, particularly the background voting process and results, it lacks any details of what comes next. This should include an outline of any auditing process and details regarding the administration of the requested funds."
  },
  "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256"
}