Why don’t we wait until this detail is ready before voting on it? There’s no looming deadline for any direct governance as far as I’m aware.
3 Likes
Here are the detailed proposals for each Regional DAOS
And here are the budgets
Right now we have 4 out of 6. The other 2 will be ready during the weekend.
4 Likes
Awesome thanks, I’ll have a look through when I get a chance
4 Likes
After today’s Governance call, I’m still convinced that batching all of the regional DAO budgets in a single proposal is a big mistake.
As this Regional DAO budget comparison shows - this proposal increases all regional DAO budgets significantly - while Celo is in a transition moment.
I suggest that each regional DAO submit its independent and efficient proposal for the period until June 30th (as indicated in the Season approach), and have each regional DAO evaluated independently.
The DAOs approved through Governance can then form a Council and collaborate with the broader Celo ecosystem to improve our shared vision and processes.
Hello @LuukDAO here is our Clarification on Budget and Funding
In this spreadsheet you shared Regional DAO overview - Google Sheets
- Why are you dividing by 5? The budget request covers 6 months of operations.
- You also highlighted: “Should still have funding until April”.
If you remember we submitted our last proposal CeloColombia DAO - Funding and Operations Proposal on October 17th asking for 50K funds to setup the foundations of Celo Colombia and Support the Launch of cCOP with a Scope of 6 months.
In that post the only negative or questioning feedback we received was your feedback as always.
In response to that post we reduced the budget to 38K (10K were asked to setup the intial LP between cCOP and USDT and this 10K will remain there) and the scope to 4 months (October, November, December & January).
After that you still keep asking more questions that we succesful answered including a question about the 10K for liquidty, so we dont know why you always forget about this when quoatting Celo Colombia Mumbers.
Proposal was submitted and we got a massively YES 99.1% and 9% Abstain but 0% NO votes and a turnout of 8.015.038 ranking among the highest in Celo Governance.
But wait…
Celo Colombia history is not new, cCOP proposal have benn pushed by the lead of this initiative @0xj4an more than two years ago first post Proposal to introduce Colombian Peso (cCOP) Stable Coin was made on march 2022 reaching more than 5K views, 189 Likes and 23 users interacting.
Those numbers are much higher than any CeloPG proposal. you can check that going to the section “Top” in Celo Forum, set timeframe to “All Time” and order by # of views or # of replies.
Second post Retomamos propuesta de $cCOP (Post en Español) was made in October 2022 with more than 1,4K views, 46 Likes and 12 users interacting those are also high numbers for a post that is not in english.
Third post $cCOP - Initial Liquidity and Marketing Plan was made on October 2023 with more than 2.5k views, 145 likes and 34 users interacting. That post was a big request with big plans and as always we recieive your questioning and feedback, that allows a big discussion and at the end gettin a last comment from @rene_celo supoorting the initiative.
Fourth post [DRAFT] $cCOP - Initial Liquidity and Marketing Plan was made on February 18 2024 asking for 30K for operations and 85K for Collateral, DEX and CEX Liquidity, this post get no answers, maybe people were tired of trying to make a proposal that never succes.
All those post have in common is your comments that normally are just the few ones that just keep opposing the succes of the proposal.
Now we managed to pass a proposal not inside CeloPG because CeloPG never supported us, we had to go direct to Celo Governance and after our proposal was succesfully aproved we inmediately started delivering as you can read in our Celo Colombia 2024 H2 Report including the Launch of $cCOP, Colombia’s First Decentralized Stablecoin and also with our efforts and collaborayion with some other ecosytem partners cCOP managed to surpass the emission in mento of the xEOF launched months ago demonstrating the cpabilities of our team and the efficient management of budgets.
In summary we faced a lot of difficulties to get to the point we are now, and the proposal included in our budget for the Celo Regional Council is just a continuation and expansion of Celo Community in Colombia 
we are sure with the budget requested for the next 6 months we will be delivering much more than we have already delivered.
And for transparency here is a detailed recap of the execution of our actual budget, we are just finalising the execution of the budget and we need a new budget to keep delivering.
Social Media and Community Engagement
- Website and Social Media Setup: Development and launch of the CeloColombia DAO website, Twitter, Telegram, and Discord accounts, including branding, initial content creation, and promotional activities
- Telegram Engagement: Maintenance of the Telegram for community interaction for 4 months.
- $1,000
Already delivered - Evidence:
- $1,000
- Part-Time Community Manager: cUSD 1,000 per month (cUSD 4,000 total) - Hiring a part-time person to manage online community engagement and social media, ensuring active and ongoing interaction.
- $4,000 Already delivered @0xflypeztic is doing that work.
- $4,000
Event and Community Outreach
- Local Meetups: Venue booking, promotional materials for 3 meetups in various Colombian cities, laying the groundwork for $cCOP adoption, including staff coordination and administrative costs.
- $3,000 Already delivered
- Evidence:
- Notion Site with all the events
- LuMa Public Calendar with now more than 114 sucriptors at the moment.
- POAP Collection of our events starting to be populated with all the POAPs beingminted in Celo
(Past events don’t have POAP this is just a new initiative)
- $3,000
- Educational Workshops/Webinars: Content development, logistics, and platform costs for hosting 3 workshops/webinars with a minimum of 25 participants each, incorporating the cost of promotional items to engage attendees and share materials that highlight the proposed initiatives.
- $3,000 Already compromised and made an advance payment.
- $3,000
- Educational Events and Hackathons: Participate in one hackathon, logistics, and grants, including branded materials and support services. These grants will support developers and entrepreneurs working on Celo-based projects, especially those with potential to drive $cCOP adoption.
- $3,000
Pending
- $3,000
Partnership Development
- Partnership Engagement: Costs related to identifying and establishing partnerships with local businesses and institutions to promote Celo-based solutions and prepare for $cCOP integration, supporting initial integration efforts and pilot projects.
- $4,000 Already delivered
- $4,000
Operational and Miscellaneous
- DAO Establishment Costs: Legal fees, administrative costs, and initial setup expenses for the DAO.
- $2,000 Already delivered
- Legal Entity already Incorporated.
- $2,000
- DAO Management: cUSD 1,500 per month (cUSD 4,000 total) - Hiring a manager to handle DAO-related tasks, including partnerships and events.
- $6,000 Already delivered @Crokien is doing that work.
- $6,000
Total Budget Approved was 28K:
- 25K Already delivered.
- 3K Still pending.
Liquidity Pools
- Uniswap Liquidity: Create necessary LP pairs for cCOP/USDT.
- $10,000 Already delivered
- $10,000
We keep this separated from the budget because those funds are in the Uniswap LP and will remain there until we think the pool has enough traction that dont need those funds.
8 Likes
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.
6 Likes
This is my first interaction with the Blockchain and with the Celo Ecosystem and I fully support Celo Colombia activities.
I have been in some of the events they are doing and I am also part of a testing group of a specific wallet being developed for Colombians don’t know the team behind the development but they are focused only in $cCOP usecases. Is very easy to use and very familiar. And the best of all is in my native language. So I don’t need to use a translator.
2 Likes
This is a great feedback. Looking forward to seeing how this discussion unfolds.
Meanwhile, I’d like to say that I’ve attended Celo Colombia events, they onboard new users, they skill up their current ones, and also develop native Celo tools to support their community.
They are an example in the region on how to do stuff.
5 Likes
Thanks, @CeloColombiano and @Crokien, for providing additional insights into the Celo Colombia scope.
Given the proposal batches all regional DAOs in a single budget - my statements yesterday were directed at the overall program design to make my argument that I believe each Regional DAO proposal should be voted on independently, as right now, it’s either Yes or No, where voters should be able to agree with some proposals and disagree with others.
Also an important note: I am sharing my perspective as a top 3 Celo Delegate, as which it is my role to take all Celo Governance proposals seriously and evaluate each proposal by its merit. Any proposal that passes through Governance will receive my and CeloPG’s support 100% without hesitation.
Also, I used the period February - June for my calculations, given that multiple teams still have January funding and the proposal would only be approved in February, and, as suggested in the Season’s approach, proposals should end in June.
It might not feel like it, but I intend to improve rigor so that those creating impact can be valued and do more. I love the Celo ecosystem and want it to thrive.
This morning, I reviewed all proposals in depth, sharing a summary of my views below:
- Africa: Clear proposal, seems in line with past reports. A positive note is that they budget Feb - June in their month-by-month sheet, which I think is the right approach. This proposal seems ready for a vote, and I would likely vote FOR.
- Europe: This proposal seems inflated; I believe multiple line items should be reduced or better scoped.
- 18K on Biz Dev seems high without clear Celo priorities identified and proper paths to exist.
- 10 research pieces at 1k each seems like a lot - why focus on the best 3?
- The 10K travel budget seems high; bringing 3-4 people on a trip is unnecessary.
- There’s an S2 remaining budget - which is weird given @NikoG, and I took some losses in December to cover @Joan_DeRB’s costs. I am unsure where this 5k is going; it hasn’t been mentioned to us.
- The budget created covers 7 months, starting in January and ending in July. This is two more months than Africa, adding ~25K USD to the budget. I would suggest reducing the scope to Feb - Jun, with some January costs covered in February.
In its current form, I would vote AGAINST this proposal - however, I am confident Celo Europe should remain a valued part of the Celo ecosystem and would love to see a slimmed-down proposal put forward.
- KohCelo (Thailand): I would like more clarification, but the proposal seems to align with past reporting.
- Given that @Vow has a job at Mantra (another L2), I would like to understand better if he’s allowed to take on the co-lead role of this KohCelo proposal and if some synergies or conflicts should be explored. I’m generally supportive of Vow, but I want to make sure he can participate.
- This proposal also doesn’t have a month-by-month sheet, which makes it hard to understand their timeline.
In its current form, I would vote AGAINST this proposal - however, if the above details can be provided, I would likely vote FOR.
- Celo Colombia: I love the approach that Celo Colombia is taking;
- the focus on cCOP and their most significant line item is the CashBack campaign (which I think is one of the most powerful tools for growth), which makes me very optimistic.
- The team breakdown is clear.
I would like to see a month-over-month sheet still that showcases this budget for Feb - Jun, as their previous proposal should be able to cover January.
If the program duration is scoped for Feb - Jun, I would vote FOR on this proposal.
- Celo Philippines: No proposal - can’t judge or approve. I would consider this an AGAINST vote unless a proposal is provided. If they don’t intend to propose, please remove the 40,000 cUSD earmarked here.
- Celo Mexico: Application seems incomplete.
- Does not use the provided template, which is a red flag. Relative to other groups, a significant share goes to team expenses (54%).
- The budget is made for six instead of 5 months.
I suggest this proposal is recreated using the provided guidelines and reviewed again afterward. Currently, I would vote AGAINST this proposal.
In Summary, only 2 Regional DAOs would, in my personal opinion, be ready to move to a vote because their plans match the anticipated outcome and current stage of Celo. The other 4 regions should receive more stakeholder input and iterate further.
If this proposal were to move forward as is, I would vote AGAINST, despite being supportive of some Regional DAOs due to the bundling of finished and unfinished proposals.
1 Like
Addressing Concerns Over the Regional Council Proposal & CeloPG’s Influence
The Celo ecosystem thrives on decentralization, transparency, and fair resource distribution. However, recent actions surrounding the Regional Council proposal raise concerns about power centralization, data misrepresentation, and the bottlenecking of Regional DAO growth.
1. The Shift in CeloPG’s Stance & The Intentional Roadblock
Initially, CeloPG supported a bundled Regional DAO approach, with Niko (a CeloPG team member) leading discussions in favor of this model. However, once Regional DAOs independently formed a self-governing council without CeloPG oversight, the narrative shifted to opposing bundled proposals.
The claim that a single proposal “bundles underperformers with efficient DAOs” is misleading. The reality is that this council was designed to reduce overhead, increase efficiency, and ensure funding goes directly to the DAOs—eliminating the need for expensive intermediaries while providing a shared framework with KPIs and transparent budgets for each region and strong representation.
So why the sudden shift? Because it removes CeloPG’s direct control over the process.
2. The Governance Call Incident – Misrepresentation & Procedural Violations
During today’s Governance Call, incorrect data was presented by @LuukDAO without prior community review, painting an inflated picture of spending rather than showcasing how DAOs are operating more efficiently. It also misrepresented underfunded DAOs that have outperformed expectations, highlighting their budget increases, such as Celo Colombia and Celo Mexico.
CeloPG bypassed governance procedures by presenting a proposal before the required 7-day posting period, while simultaneously rallying against and actively blocking other successful and pre-established DAOs from receiving fair funding for operations.
These actions reflect a clear imbalance of power, where one entity is controlling the flow of funding rather than enabling a decentralized decision-making process.
3. Seven Months Without Funding – The Mexico Case Study
Celo Mexico has been trying to secure funding since July 2024, receiving only $2,000 to operate, despite Mexico being one of the largest, most fertile regions for crypto adoption. And with already proven skills to perform the job.
Meanwhile, Solana is aggressively expanding into Mexico in 2025 with Apex, pushing stablecoin adoption—something Celo should have led. Watch video here.
Despite this lack of financial support, we delivered:
Online events
Website development
Social media engagement
Talks & workshops
Multiple micro-sponsorships
The start of a developer academy in spanish
Celo Mexican Peso proposal
A successful activation report
See full report here.
Yet, we continue to be sidelined by CeloPG members. This makes it complicated for us to find a proper team, with no funding nor certainty of funding.
4. The Bigger Issue: Centralization & Mistrust
The most critical concern isn’t just about funding—it’s about CeloPG members positioning themselves at the top of the RPG funding hierarchy while blocking the broader community from accessing resources.
- CeloPG members are among the top 5 recipients of retroactive funding, while also receiving operational payments to run the entire program.
- This creates a severe imbalance in resource distribution.
- Instead of empowering community-driven growth, a single entity is making funding decisions that stall the progress of independent initiatives.
We are not questioning CeloPG’s contributions over time as it is a valuable asset for the ecosystem, but we are questioning the increasing centralization of funding and influence.
Final Thought – A Call for Decentralization & Fairness
The Celo ecosystem is not meant to be run by a single entity. Seven months of stalled funding while one group secures and decides over the resources is not decentralization—it’s gatekeeping.
We urge the Celo community to reflect on the current power dynamics and ask:
Should one person dictate which DAOs receive funding and which do not, or should it be a community/council vote?
Is CeloPG acting in the ecosystem’s best interest, or their own?
How do we ensure decentralization remains at the core of Celo’s governance?
The Regional Council is a step toward reducing bottlenecks, increasing efficiency, and empowering DAOs directly. Any attempt to block it should be seen for what it is—a move to retain centralized control.
Celo needs decentralization, not politics. Let’s build an ecosystem that reflects that.
5 Likes
Following yesterday’s governance call, I want to clarify a key point regarding the budget data presented. The numbers provided by @LuukDAO were inaccurate.
To ensure full transparency, I have attached a spreadsheet comparing Luuk’s calculations with the actual figures, adjusted for average monthly expenditures. The discrepancies are significant, and the numbers he presented differ substantially from the real ones.
2 Likes
As mentioned above, budgets should end in June if we want to follow the suggested Season timelines. It’s now February - hence, 5 months is the funding timeline that’s correct from my POV - not 7 months.
Luuk, this is your approach, not ours.
And let’s be clear—you don’t run the Celo ecosystem.
There are teams that have been actively operating throughout January. I truly appreciate your feedback, but you can’t dictate how others should proceed.
The community has aligned on a different path, and that should be respected.
3 Likes
Hello hello, I attended the governance call yesterday and have been reading through all the posts and documentation here. Just wanted to provide my thoughts.
I think the overall idea of a Celo Regional Council is an exciting one, having the communities themselves actively involved in cross coordinating and collaborative governance could have numerous benefits as already identified.
However, even if that is true, I think it likely still makes sense for each Regional DAO to submit their standalone funding proposals to governance, while the regional council takes a supportive role in coordinating and supporting this process. This would likely provide more opportunity for proper evaluation of each proposals and increase accountability and ROI for Celo. Certainly in the long term, this seems like a structure that would work better, and I hope an evolution such as this can be implemented as part of Celo Governance 2.0.
It’s difficult to see things get so heated but I also want to take the time to reflect that conflict can be a highly constructive force. My hope is that the ideas and energy put in to these discussions can be leveraging into a positive evolution for Celo governance and ecosystem. Lets just remember that we are all on the same side!
“The diversity of human preferences is so profound that we cannot hope to resolve every social problem by consensus. Instead, we should embrace a politics that makes space for difference.”
Glen Weyl
3 Likes
Hola @LuukDAO,
We appreciate your review of the Regional Council proposal and the individual Regional DAO applications. However, we would like to clarify some key points regarding Celo Mexico’s funding status, budget breakdown, and contributions.
1. Clarification on Budget & Template Concerns
You mentioned that Celo Mexico’s application appears incomplete and does not follow the provided template. However, the template is a suggestion, not a mandatory requirement, as we fully comply with the transparency guidelines for budget breakdowns. The key issue remains:
Celo Mexico has received only $2,000 in funding since July 2024—far below the level required for meaningful operations.
Despite these limitations, we successfully delivered multiple initiatives that have helped expand Celo’s presence in Mexico, a region with high potential for stablecoin adoption and Web3 engagement.
In comparison:
- Other Regional DAOs received significantly more funding and are now being evaluated for new grants.
- Celo Mexico has yet to receive an operational budget beyond a single micro-grant.
To suggest that our proposal is not ready for review while we have been operating with severely limited resources raises concerns about fair evaluation.
However, it is important to highlight that this decision should not be dictated by a single party. The Regional Council was established precisely to address these governance topics collectively, ensuring equitable funding distribution without unnecessary external control.
2. Addressing the “High Share of Team Expenses” Concern
It was mentioned that 54% of Celo Mexico’s budget is allocated to team expenses. We would like to clarify:
Celo Mexico has operated without a funded team for months (July24-Until today). The proposed allocation is designed to establish a sustainable structure, allowing us to properly execute high-impact initiatives rather than relying solely on volunteer efforts.
Other Regional DAOs have similar or higher personnel allocations, yet this is being cited as a major issue specifically for Celo Mexico, despite us operating for months with no funding and proving our ability to deliver.
Sustainable ecosystem growth requires local leadership and execution capacity. Without a dedicated team, scaling adoption becomes impossible.
If adjustments are needed for transparency, we are open to further detailing how resources will be allocated, but dismissing the proposal on this basis alone overlooks the fact that Celo Mexico has been delivering without proper funding for over seven months (since July 2024, the first time we applied to CeloPG and the funds where fully allocated to other DAOs).
3. What Celo Mexico Has Achieved With Limited Funding
Even with minimal support, Celo Mexico has successfully:
Hosted Online Events & Talks – Educating communities about Celo & ReFi.
Developed a Website & Social Media Engagement – Creating a digital hub for outreach.
Organized Workshops & Micro-Sponsorships – Supporting local initiatives.
Launched a Developer Academy (Spanish) – Expanding Web3 education in the region.
Proposed the Mexican Peso Stablecoin (cMXP) – A key initiative to drive adoption.
Published a Full Celo Mexico Activation Report – Demonstrating impact and execution.
See the full report here.
Despite these accomplishments, Celo Mexico remains underfunded, making it difficult to recruit a stable team or expand ongoing efforts at the scale needed.
4. The Bigger Picture: Mexico’s Strategic Importance to Celo
It is important to recognize that Mexico represents a critical opportunity for Celo’s expansion, given:
Massive remittance flows & stablecoin adoption potential.
A growing Web3 & developer community actively seeking blockchains.
Competing blockchain ecosystems (e.g., Solana with Apex) are already making aggressive moves into the Mexican market.
By delaying or limiting funding to one of the most promising regions for Celo, we risk losing ground to competitors who are better resourced and already capitalizing on stablecoin adoption.
Celo Mexico should not be excluded from receiving fair funding due to technicalities when we have already demonstrated:
High-impact initiatives with minimal resources.
Clear potential for stablecoin adoption and Web3 growth.
A commitment to executing despite continuous funding delays.
We look forward to working collaboratively to refine the proposal while ensuring that Mexico receives the support needed to build a thriving Celo ecosystem in the region.
Final Thought: Let’s Support Growth, Not Delay It
The Celo ecosystem is built on decentralization and community-driven innovation. Mexico has proven its ability to deliver—now it needs the resources to expand and scale its impact.
We invite the Celo community to support this proposal and help bring Celo’s mission of financial inclusion to one of the most critical markets in Latin America.
Celo Mexico is ready to build. Let’s make it happen.
6 Likes
Hey @LuukDAO
As always, thanks for your feedback.
I want to start by saying that your input has been heard, but not integrated.
We, the Celo EU team, know best how to structure and allocate our budget based on our ongoing work, needs and alignment with the ecosystem.
@andlopvic @ricaax @0xsim @Eaznar and others
That said, as you can see here, Celo EU has prepared five different drafts for the 2025 H1 season during the pasts 2 months.
- The first four drafts were aligned under CPG, incorporating community feedback and following the scopes recommended within the Celo Public Goods framework.
- The fifth and final draft represents the current, valid budget under the Regional Council.
Our budget has been streamlined and is already operating under significant pressure.
Using your own calculations, you can see that Celo EU is operating with a -3% average cost compared to the last two seasons
We are operating with a smaller total budget, but with a larger team and a more distributed allocation of funds across multiple active contributors, ensuring greater efficiency and broader participation.
Regarding the $5K allocated to the S2/S3 team, this was originally an amount that you and Niko intended to receive upon disbursement.
If you no longer wish to claim these funds, that actually works in our favor—one less liability, allowing us to reduce the budget to $135K.
Please confirm by responding to this post.
3 Likes
You can remove any amount earmarked for @NikoG and I - we don’t expect to be paid anything.
Regarding the budget time scope comment - that’s not “my opinion”; it’s the logical scope if you consider the Seasons thread (Season 0 ending in June) and the reality that the budget would be approved in February and Colombia / Africa / Philippines / CeLatam have all been able to operate in January.
1 Like
I support the Celo Regional Council and see opportunities to further develop the Celo community in India.
Despite a lack of funding, we have successfully executed multiple initiatives that have expanded Celo’s presence in the country. However, IndiaDAO has faced challenges in securing grants, with past applications being rejected primarily due to insufficient funds. When applying for grants, we are often advised to structure proposals as a DAO, while DAO applications are redirected toward specific grants instead. This misalignment in the review process has made it difficult to meet expectations.
While we have a dedicated and hardworking community, repeated rejections have led some members to explore opportunities with other chains and communities.
2 Likes
The logical approach is to consider that the season in Europe runs until July, culminating with ETH Community Conferences.
It’s also logical to recognize that the team has been operating since January, and here’s tangible proof of our work:
Basic on-chain integration through Chamverse, thanks to @andlopvic and Bertrand.
Collaboration with institutions like UNDP and other blockchain ecosystems.
And many initiatives.
Celo EU is bringing momentum to the ecosystem, and with a -6% budget reduction compared to last season, we continue operating at full capacity.
4 Likes
Thanks for joining the conversation and sharing your feedback!
This is a great example of giving the community a voice and fostering open dialogue, in this case for Celo India.
Also, appreciate the support for the Regional Council initiative!
2 Likes