CeLatam Venture Studio

[martinvol]

CeLatam Venture Studio

Proposal Key Aspects

• Receiver Entity: Celo Governance
• Status: DRAFT
• Title: CeLatam Venture studio
• Author(s): CeLatam team
• Type of Request: Funding
• Funding Request: Return of 347K Celo and receive $220K cUSD instead

1. Summary

When CeLatam was created, a venture studio was outlined as one of the initiatives it wanted to pursue. The approved budget in CGP 76 for this specific initiative was $280K, equivalent to 424K CELO at the time (the Celo price used for reference at the time was approximately $0.67).

Since then, the price of Celo has dropped to $0.3246 (moving average of the last 25 days). The DAO currency holds 347,676.89 Celo staked and 65K Celo deposited into Aave, that adds up to a total of 412,676.89 Celo, equivalent to $133,954 at the time of writing.

In order to pursue the venture studio, without being at the same time exposed to Celo price fluctuations and dumping Celo to fund this initiative, we propose to return 347K Celo to the community fund and request $220K to guarantee the funding of the venture studio.

The budget is reduced from the original number ($280K) to be mindful of current market conditions, with the philosophy of doing more with less. This is more than a 20% budget reduction, without counting for inflation, while keeping the same objectives.

Direct investment and/or no-strings-attached advisory will be given to startups focusing on LATAM that are already building on Celo or intend to build on it.

65K Celo will be kept by the DAO for long-term incentive alignment with the Celo Community, to be deployed only after the budget in stablescoins has run out. It will be used to vote on governance, stake for validators and provide liquidity on Celo, particularly on projects focusing on Latam.

2. Motivation

2.1. About this proposal

Currently, CeLatam needs to sell CELO to fund its operations, and as it moves towards its original goals, it’s exposed to market fluctuations, which is not the ideal scenario. To pursue sustainable growth, the organization’s treasury needs to be composed of stablecoins, but swapping the current amount of CELO we hold in our treasury would not be good for CeLatam or the CELO token.

Instead, it makes more sense to use the >2 million cUSD currently available in the Community Fund (at the time of writing) to move our CELO tokens back to the Community Fund, and get cUSD so we can continue to fund our operations without selling CELO.

This proposal does not seek to create a for-profit structure. Instead, the vision is to create a foundation, NGO, or other non-profit entity that can advise and support LATAM startups building on Celo. The final legal structure will be defined once the funding is approved, ensuring compliance and alignment with the program’s mission. This entity will be governed by a board composed of the current CeLatam multisig signers, which may be rotated at the request of Celo Governance or CeLatam. The board will not hold equity directly in startups, but operational teams may earn advisory fees or carry when appropriate. Any remaining capital after startup exits (net of fees and carry) will be reinvested into new projects, creating an evergreen and self-sustaining ecosystem support vehicle.

2.2. Where we are coming from

It’s important to highlight that the development of this Venture Studio is not a pivot but rather the culmination of CeLatam’s long-term strategy since its creation in 2023. Everything we have done to date has been carefully aligned with our Theory of Change, which outlined our vision to empower Latin America through Web3 by building a community of purpose-driven founders and developers solving real problems.

Over the past years, CeLatam has:

• Generated ecosystem intelligence through research (e.g., LATAM Ecosystem Reports, key aspects web3 in LatAm such as RWA, ReFi, and Stablecoins, of research focused on builders & founders, etc).

• Build Awareness about Celo in LatAm, through co-hosting events, publishing reports on Celo presence and impact in LatAm, and how to get support to build on Celo.

• Built a community foundation through local meetups and strategic events across Latin America.

• Educated hundreds of builders and founders via content, webinars, hackathons, and our university bootcamps.

• Supported early-stage teams with direct mentorship, funding, and exposure through initiatives like Celo Incuba, our tailored accelerator for impact-driven projects.

• Laid the groundwork for the Venture Studio by forming a skilled and committed core team, mapping initiatives and topics with potential for scale, refining processes, and building partnerships across the region.

We have consistently prioritized long-term ecosystem growth over short-term metrics; the result is that even after two years of accomplishments, we still have a treasury that can keep us for a couple of months. Until now, our work has created the critical infrastructure, relationships, and insights necessary to now scale our impact by launching the CeLatam Venture Studio.

Below is a summary of our main achievements from these reports:

Lastly, the DAO has been using the CELO it holds responsibly—staking to elect validators in LATAM and earning rewards, as well as depositing tokens into Aave for additional yield. Our proposed token swap is in alignment with this prudent approach: protecting the DAO’s assets while maximizing their impact on Celo holders.

3. Specification

The proposal will send 220K cUSD to the CeLatam DAO multisig (celo:0x38DBAB5C651F352C8f5F765fDA292E9B92d850Ff) and will execute a transferFrom taking 347K Celo from the DAO multisig.

The multisig would have previously executed an approval so that Celo Governance can execute the transferFrom and everything can be executed atomically (in a single tx).

4. Metrics and KPIs

As part of our OKR framework, in our published CeLatam 2025 Strategy we outlined our North Star (Empowering builders and scaling Web3 impact-driven initiatives in Latin America) and OKRs for this year. Between the OKRs, the following Key Results will guide our execution and help track impact:

• KR1: Incubate and/or accelerate 5 high-potential projects throughout the year.
• KR2: Enable 3 projects to secure funding or strategic partnerships by Q4 2025.
• KR3: Build a network of 5 active venture capital funds supporting ecosystem projects.

Our process will include scouting, advisory, matchmaking, and in some cases, direct investment or resource allocation to selected teams.

Metrics will continue to be publicly reported and shared on the Celo Forum and on the different CeLatam’s channels, enabling the community to track progress and hold us accountable.

In terms of focus, Latin America is a diverse region, and the Venture Studio will prioritize:

• Founders and teams with strong product-market fit or potential to reach it with support.
• Initiatives in more mature Web3 ecosystems where infrastructure, community, and deal flow are already taking shape (e.g., Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Mexico).
• Collaboration opportunities with active Celo contributors and mission-aligned Web2/Web3 operators.

With this framework, we aim to not only build a pipeline of successful projects on Celo, but to do so in a way that is deliberate, measurable, and mission-driven.

5. Current Status

CeLatam has been active since 2023. It currently counts on a committed team of six contributors, three of whom have been part of the journey since the very beginning.

In 2025, our team has remained focused on executing key initiatives aligned with our CeLatam Strategy. These include:

• The launch of our university Bootcamps in Brazil and Colombia (with Mexico and Argentina coming next), designed to onboard and empower the next generation of Web3 builders.

Our regional collaboration is stronger than ever. As an active member of the Regional Hubs Council, CeLatam is coordinating closely with our fellow hubs in Latam Celo Colombia and Celo México on joint activations—starting with our current Bootcamps program. We are also proud to have MiniPay as a sponsor of our Colombia Bootcamp and look forward to expanding this collaboration to drive real-world adoption of MiniPay and the Celo ecosystem in the region.

From an operational perspective, the Venture Studio budget is ready to be executed upon governance approval. We have already received legal counsel regarding optimal non-profit structures and jurisdictions for incorporating the Studio in Latin America.

BlendedFi

Capital allocation is one of the main topics in Web3, and we can consider Impact Capital Allocation one of the main topics in the Public Goods ecosystem, including a large portion of initiatives in the Celo ecosystem. To understand the main challenges of it, as the first ideation of our Venture Studio, we did a study, with feedback from key agents of both traditional finance and Web3 finance, that revealed the lack of efficient tooling for it and how blockchain can be used to leverage the opportunities around it. The results were presented to the public at DevCon.

6 & 7. Timeline, Milestones & Detailed Budget

The CeLatam team is ready to begin executing this budget immediately upon approval. We are committed to a lean, milestone-driven approach to maximize the impact of every dollar, in line with our 2025 OKRs—especially Objective 4: Supporting the Development of High-Potential Projects.

Below is our proposed timeline, deliverables, and budget allocation by milestone:

Milestone number	Timeline	Milestone / Deliverable	Budget (USD)	Budget Category
1	Month 1 from proposal approval	- Incorporate legal vehicle for the Studio - Develop and execute a partnership strategy (perks, sponsorships, VCs, etc.) - Develop program schedule and infra - Create landing page and a communications kit for the Venture Studio - Launch open call to scout projects	15,000	Legal ($5K), Ops/Team ($10K)
2	From month 2	- Begin building a pipeline with VCs and strategic partners - Sign partnership agreements (perks or co-investment) - Select 2–3 startups for initial advisory - Match startups with mentors	$15,000	Advisory ($5K), Ops/Team ($10K)
3	From month 4	- Advise on the design of tailored growth plans for each startup - Deploy first 2 investments ($5K each) - Organize bootcamp in Mexico - Launch the Web3 LatAm Database	$25,000	Investment ($10K), Advisory ($5K), Ops/Team (10k)
4	Months 5–8	- Organize demo showcase (IRL or online) - Organize bootcamp in Argentina - Organize Celo Gather during Devconnect in Buenos Aires - Document and publish case studies and progress reports From 2026: - Launch new open-call to accelerate startups	$51,000	Advisory ($5K), Ops/Team ($40K),Events ($5k) MKT ($1k)
	Month 9–12	- Start advising 2–3 new startups - Deploy 3 more investments ($10K–15K each) - Help 3+ startups prepare for fundraising/demo day - Solidify VC network (at least 5 funds engaged) - Organize demo showcase (IRL or online)	$80,000	Investment ($40K), Ops/Team ($40K)
5	Long-Term	- Track startup progress and support follow-ons - Upon exit, reinvest funds (after carry & fees) - Maintain transparency and community engagement	$35,000	Ops & Team ($10K), Advisory ($5K), Buffer/Contingency ($20K)

TL;DR

Total Budget:

– $220,000 USD (aprox only $60K in net funding since Celo is being returned)

Key Outputs:
– 5+ projects incubated or accelerated
– 3+ projects with follow-on funding or partnerships
– Network of 5+ VC funds and ecosystem partners

This roadmap allows us to deploy capital progressively, adjust based on learnings, and ensure transparency and accountability at each step.

8. Team

CeLatam current team:
Anna Kaïc, Cristobal Pereira, Gabriel Ribenboin, Martín Volpe, Marcelo Silva, and Susanne Zarpellon.

9. Payment Terms

CeLatam returns 347K Celo and receives $220K cUSD, executed atomically upon execution of this governance proposal.

10. Additional Support/Resources

CeLatam’s Linktree

Web3 Latin American Landscape Report
Hacking Growth in Latin America: Regenerative Finance, Real-World Assets, and Stablecoins
Support to build on Celo
Spanish and Portuguese versions of the Startup Pathway by Celo Camp
A Theory of Change for Latin America

You can explore our progress and impact in detail in our public reports:

Season 0 (2023)
Season 1 H1 (1st Semester 2024)
Season 1 (2024)
Celo Incuba - 3 batches

[yomfana]

This reply intends to address the current and former leadership behind CeLatam and not necessarily @martinvol who seems to be a multisig signer in an advisory capacity.

To start off, I believe there’s crucial context missing, and I’d like to fill in some of the gaps through on-chain analysis, so the community can fairly assess this request.

CeLatam received 903K CELO on April 15, 2023, worth approximately $605K at the time of transfer. While technically this was an approval, the full amount was made available immediately at that moment in time. I’ll assume CeLatam’s treasury strategy was to retain the funds in CELO and draw down the approval over time.

It is also important to note that CeLatam’s multisig has been active nearly every month since its inception. The pattern of funds usage has been relatively consistent: withdraw CELO from the Community Fund, transfer it to an EOA, and then swap it on Mento for cUSD. The most recent such action suggests that CELO was locked and then gradually withdrawn and spent over time. At present, 374K CELO remains locked.

Based on transaction history, CeLatam has withdrawn CELO from the community fund across six separate transactions, and the combined USD value of CELO at the time of each withdrawal adds up to approximately $570K. From the perspective of community fund, it’s important to emphasize this point: once funds leave the Community Fund and enter a grantee’s custody, they are considered spent. How those funds are managed after is the responsibility of the recipient.

Yes, CELO has lost value since the initial proposal just as every holder has experienced. But that does not justify turning around and asking the community to compensate for that volatility. In fact, every grantee takes on some market risk when accepting CELO, and there’s nothing particularly unique about this case.

This proposal requests the return of 347K CELO in exchange for $220K in cUSD (The specification mentions $250k. Not sure which one is the correct value), valuing CELO at roughly $0.634 (The 1 month TWAP is hovering closer to $0.32). This is an absurd attempt to dump volatile assets back onto the community, at a valuation no one else in the market would accept (2x).

The team still held 500K CELO in January 2025, when they could have still been converted into $280K+. That window closed because of failure to act. Also, The venture studio was one of the core deliverables outlined 2 years ago. Why wasn’t it stood up earlier? Or should I say, as late as January 2025?

I appreciate CeLatam’s past contributions and the potential value of a venture studio. But this proposal sets a precedent that undermines transparency, fiscal discipline, and basic fairness. The community fund is not a convenient swap pool to turn to after what looks like a stream of poor decisions. I’m open to discussion, but the current framing of this proposal is financially unsound.

[martinvol]

Thanks for the heads up, the specification was wrong, I’ve just updated it.

To add context, CeLatam has not received any additional funding since the original 2023 proposal that I know of.

Once funds leave the Community Fund and enter a grantee’s custody, they are considered spent.

Regarding this, I want to emphasize this is your personal view and not necessarily the status quo. If I’m wrong, please send me the executed governance proposal where this is actually stated. You can also make a point that at the time of this proposal passing is considered spend (as Celo Governance in practice can not get it back without the multisig cooperating), or that it’s spent at the time of selling, because that is when liquidity is actually taken out of the market.

I guess we could have that theoretical discussion, but the reality is that now the budget is just not there, and the only way to materialize this vision would be by approving this proposal, or secure some other way to fill the gap.

But looking back, what would have been the alternative? Dumping it all to the market to guarantee the funding even if the team was not ready to execute? I think that sets a very bad precedent of expectation for people that receive funding in Celo, telling people that then they should dump it right away. I think that would have been a lot more harm than good if everyone operated like this.

This is an absurd attempt to dump volatile assets back onto the community , at a valuation no one else in the market would accept (2x).

I think it’s actually the opposite. This proposal is actually meant to avoid dumping Celo in the open markets, and thus making the asset less liquid for everyone else. It allows Celo Governance to spend Celo at a later time when the market impact will be a lot less significant.

Obviously, Celo Governance should not involved in trades. I think it is a mistake thinking about this as a trade, my simplified interpretation of this proposal would be instead: “We made sure to impact the Celo liquidity as little as possible, and because of that, we found ourselves in a situation where we need this funding to fulfil the goals confortably, and as an act of good-will, it makes more sense to return the Celo as well.”.

The team still held 500K CELO in January 2025, when they could have still been converted into $280K+. That window closed because of failure to act. Also, The venture studio was one of the core deliverables outlined 2 years ago. Why wasn’t it stood up earlier? Or should I say, as late as January 2025?

I fully see your point, in fact, I am personally not happy that CeLatam hasn’t been able to execute the budget related to the venture studio, and that is why I am trying to take a more active role now.

In January, the DAO pulled the funds to engage in staking to support validators based in Latam, and as you point out, it’s clear on-chain that the Celo has not been sold.

I appreciate CeLatam’s past contributions and the potential value of a venture studio. But this proposal sets a precedent that undermines transparency, fiscal discipline, and basic fairness . The community fund is not a convenient swap pool to turn to after what looks like a stream of poor decisions. I’m open to discussion, but the current framing of this proposal is financially unsound. I would also like to hear what the regional DAO committee has to say about this. I can see CeLatam has also received additional funding from that end as well.

I invite you to think about it from another angle. I really want to see this vision of having a venture studio focusing on Celo and Latam materialize, I think it will be of great value to the ecosystem. I could have just started this from scratch myself, and make a new proposal independent of CeLatam, in personal behalf. But I do believe in the importance of having an institution championing for Celo in LATAM, and I have full confidence on the current CeLatam team. At the end of the day, the Venture Studio we are proposing will be a public good, and not a private initiative.

I do not feel confortable sharing publicly why I think CeLatam found itself in this position, but I can say with confidence that now the main issue has been resolved, and I am doing everything I can to see CeLatam thrive.

All here is stated in personal behalf.

[yomfana]

@martinvol

I want to emphasize this is your personal view and not necessarily the status quo. If I’m wrong, please send me the executed governance proposal where this is actually stated.

You’re right, there is no explicit rule stating when funds are officially considered “spent” and I acknowledge that this is my personal interpretation. It would be valuable for Celo Governance to eventually clarify this ambiguity, perhaps even allowing for more flexibility in future frameworks.

@martinvol

I really want to see this vision of having a venture studio focusing on Celo and Latam materialize, I think it will be of great value to the ecosystem.

I also do believe that there’s genuine value proposition here. The ultimate beneficiaries are the builders and communities in LATAM, and it would be unfortunate to see a potentially impactful initiative stall. Though I wonder if the community truly benefits if only 22% of the proposed budget is going directly towards investments? Anyways, I also appreciate your candidness and the acknowledgement of past inefficiencies that have eventually contributes to the current situation.

My main concern is the risk of setting a precedent that could seem unfair to other grantees and stakeholders who have weathered CELO’s volatility without seeking retroactive adjustments, Its not just a matter of goodwill, but also ensuring consistency, fiscal responsibility and fairness across the ecosystem.

I also hope the LATAM community feels confident that CeLatam (under its new leadership) is still the best suited entity to steward this vision. My role here is to provide accountability, not opposition. Ultimately trust from the community should be the deciding factor.

@martinvol

To add context, CeLatam has not received any additional funding since the original 2023 proposal that I know of.

Thanks for clarifying. I’ll update my previous post.

[martinvol]

Proposal has been just updated to add extra info and to address feedback

[0xj4an-work]

Thanks @martinvol and team for the proposal, at my end this proposal is fulfilling all the requirements:

• Post a proposal in the Celo Forum and leave it for discussion at least for seven (7) days.
• Present Proposal in a Governance Call and address the feedback received: Proposal was presented during Celo Governance Call #68 | May 15th, 2025

With the above said, from my end the proposal is ready to move into the voting phase when proposer wants to move forward or consider is appropriate.

---

Remember Current Celo Governance Overview & Procedures

To proceed to the submission and voting phase at least two Celo Governance Guardians must post explicitly that the proposal fulfills the requirements to be able to move into the Voting Stage in the proposal thread on the Celo Forum.

---

Remember next steps

• Submission of PR to Celo Governance Repository
  Proposers needs to fork the Celo Governance Repository and add a PR including the proposal .md file and json file.
• Approval of PR by Celo governance Guardians and merge into main branch of Celo Governance Repository.
  Celo Guardians are responsible for conducting a comprehensive review of every Pull Request (PR) to ensure that there is complete alignment and consistency between the final proposal posted in the forum post and the specific files that are being requested to be merged.
  This review process is strictly technical in nature, focusing solely on verifying the authenticity and good faith of the proposers. It does not involve any personal opinions or biases regarding the merits or content of the proposal itself. To maintain the integrity of the Celo Governance repository, it is mandatory to obtain approval from a minimum of two Governance Guardians for each PR before it can be merged into the main branch.
• OnChain Submission of Proposal
  After PR is merged into main Governance Repo the proposers needs to fork locally the Celo Governance Repository and submit the proposal onchain using the guidelines described in the Celo Docs.

---

CC: Governance Working Group (@annaalexa @Wade @0xGoldo)

[Wade]

Thanks @martinvol and team for the proposal. Confirming the proposal is ready to be moved to the next stage as outlined above

[Thylacine]

Missed this one before voting was live, but I pretty much agree with @yomfana here, this request is pretty wild.

You can’t sell back CELO to the treasury that has been sat on for years at a huge markup to the market.

Looking at the content of this proposal more charitably, I think what you’re asking for is a top-up to continue CeLatam initiatives. This should be the only request in the proposal.

If you need more money for your activities, just ask for that. The community treasury should not be used as a vehicle for unwinding past portfolio management decisions.

A successful governance grantee’s only job is to deliver on their goals with the approval they are granted. It’s not your job to manage global sell pressure on a multi-million dollar protocol.

I’ll be voting No on this in it’s current form, and I’m sorry I missed the governance call where this was presented as I would have said the same things.

[LuukDAO]

I’ve voted AGAINST this proposal as I don’t see a clear reason to fund this initiative and convert CELO to cUSD at a loss.

With key members of Celatam’s initial founding team no longer involved and without proof of incubation ROI, this proposal is unlikely to generate value.

Also, it’s unclear what vehicle for investments would be used, and the size of the tickets is not significant enough. I would rather see a larger scale Celo Ecosystem Fund get created with a clear value flow to and from the Treasury.

[tumblockchain]

As TUM Blockchain Club, we’ve voted AGAINST this proposal and want to express our support for the concerns raised by @yomfana.

We fully agree that accepting CELO comes with inherent market risk, and it’s the grantee’s responsibility to manage those funds wisely. Retroactive compensation through the Community Fund would set a problematic precedent and compromise fairness for all grant recipients.

[martinvol]

I see this venture studio as an experiment before creating a big Celo Ecosystem Fund, to go the stakes from lower to higher, to make sure a model really works before investing in it with significant more money.

I disagree that the tickets are not significant, I’ve personally invested in startups with tickets as low as $5K that either help them when we needed the cash the most, or to secure an ally early on.

Same with advising, a big chunk of the equity I own I made it through advising, and I want to replicate this at scale, but institutionalized in a vehicle the Celo community can benefit form.

[Dee]

I’ve voted against this proposal because it sets a problematic precedent. There’s been a lack of communication or reporting on the success metrics outlined in the original proposal.

Even if the initial effort didn’t achieve its intended results, sharing insights into the challenges, obstacles, and even small wins would still be highly valuable for the broader community. Transparent reflection would help us develop stronger frameworks and questions to guide future initiatives and avoid repeating past mistakes.

That said, I’m encouraged that the project is not entirely defunct and that approximately one-third of the CELO remains. It would be helpful to understand your current thinking: What are the next steps? Would it make sense to pause and wait for a more favorable market? Just seven months ago, the CELO price was above $1, which would value your current holdings above the amount now being requested in cUSD.

In the meantime, I’d appreciate an update on your revised direction, metrics for success, and which projects look promising to you. Also, where do you see the biggest gaps in the LatAm ecosystem that CeLatam can help fill?

[martinvol]

Thanks a lot for the feedback.

I will share my personal learnings from the experience.

I think we should also share what our plan is for how the remaining of the funds. I’ll discuss with the team and follow up.