Hello @LuukDAO, while we appreciate your perspective on the need for independent evaluations of each Regional DAO, the budget comparison you presented lacks essential context and risks* creating a biased perception among decision-makers.
Your table suggests that all Regional DAOs are significantly increasing their budgets at a time when Celo is transitioning to Layer 2. While we recognize the importance of careful financial planning during this period, Celo must also continue supporting its growth and retaining key contributors. Cutting off well-established teams could cause more harm than the funds saved, leading to setbacks in adoption and a loss of experienced talent that has been actively contributing to the ecosystem.
Misleading Budget Calculations
Regarding Celo Colombia, which was mentioned in the call without an opportunity for response, I want to clarify the actual numbers:
- Our approved budget covered four months (October, November, December, and January), as stated in the forum CeloColombia DAO - Funding and Operations Proposal
- The total approved amount was $38,000, but $10,000 was allocated to the liquidity pool, meaning our actual operational budget was $28,000.
- For a six-month period, our proposed budget is $42,000 if we take the aproved one for 4 months and use the formula Equivalent Budget for six months = 28K / 4 months * 6 months = 42K, this number contrasted with the actual budget request 57,5 K representing only a 37% increase (excluding liquidity funds).
- If liquidity funds are included the past budget using the formula to rationale a six months budget will be 38K / 4 months * 6 months = 57K, this number contrasted with the actual budget request 57,5 K representing only a 0,8% increase a stark contrast to the 163% increase cited in your spreadsheet, which creates a misleading narrative.
- Furthermore, the numbers in your table are further skewed because you divided the total budget request by 5 months instead of 6, making the increases appear even more extreme. This artificially inflates the perceived budget growth and distorts the true financial picture.
The way these numbers were presented amplifies the illusion of drastic budget expansion, without considering the reality of operational needs or the return on investment. If we are to make fair comparisons, we must assess impact, efficiency, and demonstrated results, rather than simply looking at the percentage increase of a budget in isolation.
Celo PG’s Role as a Bottleneck
Additionally, it is important to highlight that Celo Public Goods (Celo PG), under your leadership, has consistently opposed Celo Colombia’s initiatives and often acted as a bottleneck rather than a facilitator. Instead of supporting decentralized, community-led growth, Celo PG’s approach has frequently introduced unnecessary obstacles, slowing down the development and adoption of local blockchain initiatives.
This was further evident today when Celo PG was allowed to present its proposal in the governance call despite not meeting the required discussion period in the forum, while the council proposal that fully complied with the process had limited opportunity for discussion. This reinforces a biased narrative, making it appear as though the numbers presented are an objective reflection of reality when they do not accurately represent the operational costs and unique needs of each Regional DAO.
A More Fair and Impact-Driven Approach
I agree that efficiency and accountability are important. However, transparency in how proposals are evaluated is equally important. Rather than focusing on surface-level budget comparisons, decision-makers should evaluate Regional DAOs based on actual performance, impact, and alignment with Celo’s broader mission—especially during this transition to Layer 2.
If the goal is to optimize coordination between regional DAOs, the formation of a DAO Council should be a complement to proper funding allocations, not a substitute for them. Ensuring continuity in ecosystem growth and talent retention must remain a priority. Well-functioning initiatives that have demonstrated impact should not be sidelined, especially when their contributions are directly advancing Celo’s long-term vision.
Looking forward to a fair and informed discussion.