Dear community,
big question ahead: „Shouldn’t Social Connect become its own thing?“
SC has ever since been an integral part of Celo‘s mobile first approach, recently reaching 3M mapped identifiers, making it already a major player in the decentralized identity space. With its ability to support mobile numbers, social logins, email, and other identifiers, there is an incredible opportunity to become the identity backbone in Web3, improving user experience and security throughout the EVM world and maybe even beyond.
I‘m personally excited about Celo‘s proximity to identity issuers like Telcos and believe that improving the protocol towards a seamless integration with existing identifier lifecycles can bring more credibility and security into blockchain networks and onboard the next billions of users. Take mobile numbers as an example: they are recognized identity elements (e.g. 2FA in banking), allow for several security features (see GSMA Open Gateway), are widely spread (> 5.5 bn subscribers, see GSMA Intelligence) and intuitive in use (you don‘t need a link for that 
).
The Celo community is now at an inflection point, and I think SC should have its own governance, similar to how Mento did DAO spin out. The protocol could build up a dedicated team and then gather the resources needed to advance its core and grow adoption e.g. via identity issuers.
What do you think?
Best,
Fabian
Really appreciate you starting a conversation around this 
