As TUM Blockchain Club, while we appreciate the intention behind the Celo Kreiva DAO proposal and acknowledge its commitment to empowering creative contributors within the Celo ecosystem, particularly through clearly structured grant pools, defined KPIs, and a promise of regular reporting, we are voting AGAINST the proposal at this time for the following reasons:
⸻
- Premature Scope and Unproven Value-Add Beyond Funding
The DAO is at an early stage without a prior proof of concept, successful grant execution, or on-chain track record. While the proposal emphasizes that Celo Kreiva goes beyond simply distributing funds—offering mentorship, exposure, and curated support—we would like to first see concrete evidence that these services create meaningful additional value for creatives. A pilot or smaller kickoff grant would allow the team to demonstrate this.
In particular, the visibility argument deserves closer scrutiny. While it’s true that many artists struggle to gain attention in decentralized marketplaces, we do not believe a DAO layer is inherently required to solve this. Creators can already seek funding through existing programs and allocate it for promotion, consultancy, or marketing support. In contrast, this DAO introduces a curation mechanism that resembles a centralized promoter model, which may add friction rather than accessibility.
A pilot phase would clarify what measurable advantages an artist gains by going through the Kreiva DAO, as opposed to operating through existing open grant and market pathways.
⸻
- Lack of Established Trust Anchors
Only one confirmed partnership (Revelator Music) exists at this time. The remaining listed collaborations remain aspirational. Given the scale of the requested funding ($177,000 cUSD), we would have expected a stronger network of active ecosystem partners. Without them, it’s difficult to assess how the DAO will attract high-quality applicants and execute on its goals.
⸻
- Unfavorable Timing and Market Conditions
NFT and creator markets are currently underperforming. Combined with the DAO’s early stage and minimal visibility to date, this raises the risk that much of the funding might not lead to meaningful engagement or ecosystem impact in the short term.
⸻
Conclusion
We support the broader mission of growing a creative economy within the Celo ecosystem, and we believe this team may be able to contribute meaningfully to that goal. However, we urge a phased approach: deliver a pilot round first, validate your model, and then return with real traction. That would provide the strongest foundation for community trust and sustainable impact.