Celo Regional Council Season 1 Funding Request V2

Proposal Key Aspects

  • Receiver Entity: Celo Governance
  • Status: [DRAFT]
  • Author(s): Rica (@ricaax), Joan (@Joan_DeRB), Brisa (@Brisa), 0xj4an Work (@0xj4an-work), Susanne (@szapelao), Kaan (@kaankacar)
  • Type of Request: Funding
    • Intent: Season 1
    • Funding Category: Regional Community Growth
    • Funding Request: $433,400 worth represented in 392,000 cUSD + 138,000 CELO ($41,400) (equal to x CELO tokens at an average of 0.3)

Summary

The Celo Regional Council requests funding for Season 1 operations to serve as a decentralized coordination and growth layer for the ecosystem.

This proposal consolidates ecosystem funding for all Regional Hubs under a single, transparent governance framework. Instead of fragmented proposals and duplicated work, the Council acts as a strategic layer to localize Season 1 Intents, harmonize metrics, and scale adoption globally through a network of regional hubs.

By pooling resources, the Council ensures alignment with Vision 2030 and Season 1 priorities, reduces operational overhead, and creates a sustainable model for ecosystem growth.

Season 1 Goals

  • Execute a regional governance model with voting representation from four macro-regions: Africa, Europe, LatAm, Asia.
  • Empower local nodes to activate ecosystem intents (Grow TXs and TVL).
  • Standardize metrics, reporting, and community contribution tooling for consistency across regions.
  • Deliver measurable growth through high-impact events, integrations, and protocol onboarding aligned with Season 1 Intents.

Motivation

Over the past seven months, the Regional Council evolved from an experimental initiative to a structured coordination model. This process highlighted critical needs:

Key insights from Season 0:

  • Fragmented local efforts created duplicated work and coordination gaps
  • High-context contributors need lightweight, supportive governance—not bureaucratic overhead
  • Grassroots wins (e.g. wallet downloads, protocol pilots, txs growth) often lacked visibility or support at the global level

The Regional Council directly addresses these challenges by:

  • Translating global strategy (e.g. Vision 2030, Season Intents) into regional tactics
  • Supporting local nodes to engage real communities, not just run paid activations
  • Embedding promising builders within high-context regions for long-term impact

Specification

At the end of Season 1, the Regional Council will have formalized a governance structure that balances decentralization and efficiency:

  • 4 voting members (one per macro-region)
  • Open participation for all regional nodes
  • Internal governance models per region to ensure local representation and transparent reporting

This structure enhances global alignment while respecting regional autonomy, enabling hubs to deliver measurable contributions to Season 1 Intents.

Decentralized by Design: Global Network, Local Impact

Celo’s regional hubs are a decentralized growth engine: global alignment, local execution. As Celo transitioned as an Ethereum L2, it turns Season 1 Intents into measurable onchain results by partnering with trusted operators on the ground—meeting users where they already are (stablecoins, mobile, remittances), and channeling that demand into TX growth, TVL, and integrations across diverse markets. This structure isn’t just coordination—it’s compounding advantage: shared playbooks and metrics, faster feedback loops, milestone-based funding via regional multisigs, and credibility with local stakeholders like builders, universities, merchants, and regulators.

Africa

Africa has been the leading region for Celo adoption, especially driven by MiniPay, in a market that processed over $125 million in on-chain value in 2023–24. Celo Africa DAO is a benchmark regional hub, active in countries like Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, Uganda and South Africa. It has delivered significant impact by fostering thousands of developers, onboarding merchants, and running community programs that drove real-world use cases. For this season, their proposal focuses on expanding developer funnels, deepening stablecoin adoption through ramps and community pilots, and enhancing on-chain retention strategies across key African markets.

Budget requested to activate the Celo ecosystem in Africa: 102,000 cUSD

Europe

Europe hosts some of the world’s most advanced blockchain developer ecosystems, contributing to over $200B in crypto adoption across the region (Chainalysis). Celo Europe DAO has been activating local builders and projects, starting with Vocdoni, which has over 400,000 on-chain transactions, and collaborating with UNDP on events, governance, and on-chain deployment initiatives. For this season, their proposal focuses on deploying 10+ MCP-compatible mini apps, onboarding 20+ builders, and publicly tracking 50,000+ cumulative transactions through KarmaGAP and GitHub dashboards.

Budget requested to activate the Celo ecosystem in Europe: 80,000 cUSD +34,000 Celo

Latin America

Latin America is one of the fastest-growing regions for Web3 adoption, with high mobile penetration, economic volatility, and over 500 million people creating ideal conditions for Celo and decentralized technologies to thrive. The region is coordinated through a LATAM Coalition formed by CeLatam, Celo Colombia, and Celo Mexico, covering mainly Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, with proven track records in developer onboarding, stablecoin adoption, merchant integration, and community activation. For this season, the coalition aims to expand on-chain impact through workshops, developer pipelines, and real-world usage of Celo assets, targeting over 100,000 transactions, 190 developers onboarded, 65 smart contracts deployed, 35 dApps launched, and much more, with all activities tracked transparently via KarmaGAP.

Budget requested to activate the Celo ecosystem in LatAm: $117.000 cUSD + 20.000 Celo

Asia (MENA/APAC)

Asia is a critical region for Web3 growth, accounting for over $600B in on-chain value in 2023 (Chainalysis) and hosting some of the largest developer ecosystems fueling L2 adoption. For Season 1, fragmented country-level efforts (Celo India, Celo Arabia, KohCelo, Celo Turkey, Celo PH) are consolidated into a unified MENA/APAC Hub led by Rise In. Leveraging its proven infrastructure across emerging markets (Turkey, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, UAE), Rise In will activate developers through hackathons, roadshows, and workshops, while retaining talent via mentorship and BD support. The goal is to onboard 650+ developers, generate 250+ projects, and funnel 30+ startups into Celo’s global builder programs by the end of 2025.

Budget requested to activate the Celo ecosystem in Asia: 83,000 $cUSD + 34,000 $Celo


Metrics & KPIs

See the breakdown of the Metrics per Regional Hub here: RC Season 1 Goals

These outcomes ensure every dollar spent translates into onchain adoption and long-term ecosystem growth.


Current Status

The Council completed Season 0 (first semester of 2025) with strong progress in alignment, coordination, and ecosystem engagement, laying the foundation for a more structured and impactful Season 1. This season builds on that work with a clearer governance framework, reinforcing measurable targets, and lean resource allocation to maximize efficiency and results.

Across Season 1, the Council has consolidated regional proposals under one streamlined structure, ensuring alignment with the Season 1 Intents: growing daily transactions, increasing TVL on Celo, and supporting sustainable ecosystem expansion. All approved proposals meet these criteria, with budgets calibrated to deliver measurable outcomes while maintaining transparency and accountability.

The total approved budget for Season 1 is $433,400 (392,000 cUSD + 138,000 Celo at 0.3 US/Celo rate). All activities and results will be reported accordingly and publicly tracked through KarmaGAP, GitHub, and dashboards, reinforcing the Council’s commitment to transparent reporting and governance maturity.

This proposal reflects the community’s strong intention to work closely with the Celo Foundation’s goals, strengthen the ecosystem, and implement professional, replicable methodologies. By focusing on high-impact initiatives—such as Celo Gather during DevConnect 2025 in Argentina —the Council ensures that resources are directed toward initiatives that generate relevant community growth, and tangible on-chain activity and developer adoption worldwide.


Funding Breakdown

Regional Council Operations

  • Core Ops (coordination, reporting, governance): 10,000 cUSD
  • Rewards, ops and buffer: 50,000 Celo

Hub Budgets

Additionally, in the accompanying spreadsheet, you will find:

  1. Season-to-season budget comparisons
  2. Draft 1: including all submitted proposals
  3. Final Draft: only the approved and voted proposals
  4. Budget comparison for Intent 1, including CPG, Stabila, Prezenti, and the Regional Council


As illustrated in the chart above, the Regional Council has succeeded in aligning proposals across the ecosystem while reducing or stabilising budgets in nearly all regions.

The Council prioritised retaining key activities and ensuring continuity in high-impact regions, especially those with demonstrated alignment with Season 1 Intents.

This outcome reflects not only a collective commitment to lean and accountable spending, but also an improved shared understanding of how to frame regional work within a global strategy. The Council has shown its ability to make difficult decisions, balance diverse priorities, and uphold the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem.

We believe this is a clear sign of governance maturity and a solid foundation for continued decentralisation.

Why This Matters

The Regional Council is not just funding operations—it is building a scalable, transparent governance model that empowers local communities, amplifies adoption, and creates shared accountability across the ecosystem.

Season 1 is the first step toward a self-sustaining, decentralized structure that aligns global vision with local execution, ensuring Celo continues to grow in diverse, high-potential markets worldwide.


Impact Summary

Region Communities Impact Budget
AFRICA Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, Uganda & South Africa 500 Developers onboarded(KarmaGap) 50k+ transactions generated 10+ high-potential startups onboarded & maturing from the Incubator Program to Celo Camp 200+ on-chain apps/ active repos tracked via KarmaGAP 20 IRL Developer workshops(Codejams) 15+ MVPs integrating MiniPay 20 Miniapps onboarded 4 Hackathons tracked via HackersDAO 102K cUSD
MENA / APAC Turkey, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, UAE 650+ developers onboarded (i.e. actively participated in the programs) 250+ projects built, all tracked via KarmaGAP & Electric Capital 500k+ impressions generated 83k cUSD + 34k Celo
EUROPE Estonia, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Finland 250+ developers onboarded (actively participated in programs) 25+ projects built (tracked via KarmaGAP & Electric Capital) 150k+ impressions generated 3+ high-quality projects/startups funnelled into Celo programs 5+ ambassadors activated in the region 10+ MCP-compatible apps deployed with open-source repos 80k cUSD + 34k Celo
LATAM Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico 150+ developers via workshops, sprints, and incentive campaigns 150,000+ TVL Onboarded into LP and Staking programs. 65+ Smart Contract deployed. 30+ active projects tracked on KarmaGAP & GitHub 35+ deployed dApps or protocol integrations, tracked via Karma GAP 10+ Merchants activated using stablecoins. 10+ Contributor/Ambassadors onboarded. 117k cUSD + 20k Celo

Regional Council Team

  • Africa
    • Celo Africa: Brisa (@0xBrisa)
  • Europe
  • Latin America
  • Asia – MENA/APAC

Regional Council MultiSig

We propose a threshold of 3/7 multisig (0x90860C778a8A69380376BAab6ac7Fec5daff4Ab5) for Season 1.

  • Africa: 2 Signers
    • Brisa: 0xCDB4932164F6ee22f34d7718373C58934FE2a050
    • Dan Kimotho: 0x4827Acd22429C1832980b4039f144b40311D9261
  • Europe: 2 Signers
    • Rica: 0x7F2053A876Cb053d8BB122Bde961F6ec5Fb6fFc5
    • Joan: 0x5d1ed874ea2f4269c2e1D075973c7fdb7b39154A
  • Latin America: 2 Signers
    • Susanne: 0xC689451CAA770c36fc94A02068A5CaE21EEcDDe4
    • Ximena (Celo Colombia EOA): 0x12BD1596d7cfbf7c18F08499B54A31C980989070
  • Asia: 1 Signer
    • Kaan: 0xC2a762bB225cA1FC3c394ed3a360b8B11D0395fD
16 Likes

I can confirm, this is my address

6 Likes

I can confirm this is my address

3 Likes

I confirm that this is my address

4 Likes

Considering the impact on creating a real developer community this proposal makes sense. Celo needs to be more visible and impactful among developers to stay competitive, and this plan seems to be addressing this big gap in our ecosystem. Hope to see great success from these initiatives and more and more quality developers talking about Celo.

7 Likes

I confirm that this is my address

5 Likes

I can confirm this is my address.

Great line-up! Happy to serve the Celo ecosystem and contribute to Season 1 goals together with the Council. Excited to see the collective impact across all hubs. Looking forward to achieve amazing things with this amazing team!

9 Likes

Was there a technical or extenuating circumstance that calls for submitting this again after it failed to pass only a month ago?

@celogovernance Could you add details of what happened here?

4 Likes

Thanks for flagging @Thylacine and a valid concern.

The previous proposal was rejected with

Yes - 1,553,274 - 49%
No - 1,524,488 - 48%
Abstain - 67,865 - 2%

As per the rules around governance found here

If a proposal is not accepted, a so-called cool-off or rest period for additional conversation and potential changes is started before the proposal can be resubmitted again.

  • If a proposal is rejected due to not reaching a quorum but having a majority of yes votes, the proposal is moved back to the discussion stage and may be submitted for a vote after waiting for 14 days.
  • If a proposal is rejected and has a majority of no votes, the proposal is moved back to the discussion stage and may be submitted for a vote after receiving approval from the Governance Guardians and waiting for 28 days.

They have waited 28 days and are now going through the second discussion phase after iterating over the failed proposal.

9 Likes

Are Abstain considered “not a yes” and added to the “no” count in these cases? Which is why that needed to wait 28 days?

1 Like

Hi folks! I want to take a moment to share my appreciation for the work that has gone into this proposal. Since the first version failed to meet quorum, I’ve had the chance to meet with each region individually, and I’ve been impressed with how open and cooperative everyone has been in taking feedback and adapting their proposals. It’s clear that a lot of thought has gone into aligning this v2 with Celo Foundations’s growth and developer relations goals as well as the Season 1 Intents.

Coordinating so many stakeholders across the world in a decentralized organization is no small task, yet the Regional DAOs have persevered through early setbacks and done a tremendous job bringing alignment. This shows the team going above and beyond the necessary process by incorporating feedback, presenting on another governance call, and waiting the 28 day cool down period.

I’m glad to see this version structured into four distinct regions, which not only helps contributors stay in close contact and collaborate in tighter more regionally aligned teams but also makes it easier for governance participants to understand the overall regional impact at a glance. It also reduces the burden on Regional Council to coordinate 10+ different proposals, which can become a blocker through a demanding submission process.

I’m also excited to see experimentation in reframing some proposals as contributor centric rather than scope centric. It provides more clarity about the work but more importantly puts people at the heart, which has always been one of the core values in the Celo community. As we continue to improve operational efficiency in governance overall, this feels like a step in the right direction.

Looking forward to this presentation on the governance call tomorrow!

12 Likes

This is a serious breach of trust and a blatant violation of Celo governance rules. The initial vote FAILED. For a funding request to pass, it must achieve at least 60% YES votes after quorum. This proposal had less than 20% YES after quorum. The rules are explicit: a proposal rejected with majority NO must wait 28 days before being resubmitted.

On-chain timestamps:

  • 4 Aug (1754268627) – Proposal dequeued, ready for referendum
  • 11 Aug (1754873427) – Referendum completed, proposal fails
  • 8 Sep (1757292627) – Cooldown expiry

Furthermore, the governance framework requires at least 7 full days of forum discussion, author responsiveness and a community call before a proposal can move forward. When combined with the cooldown, the next Thursday (community call) the earliest legitimate community call and on-chain submission date is 11 September assuming no forum feedback is required and the proposal is marked as FINAL.

Proposals must be posted in the Celo Forum for review by the Celo community. It is required to post the proposal as a new discussion thread in the Governance category and to mark it with [DRAFT] in the title. Proposal authors are expected to be responsive to feedback.

A proposal needs to be up for discussion for at least 7 full days, during which responsiveness from the author is mandatory.

After a proposal has received feedback and has been presented on the governance call the proposal author shall update the proposal thread title from [Draft] to [Final]. Authors shall also include a summary of incorporated feedback as a comment on their proposal thread so future reviewers can understand the proposal’s progress. If feedback was gathered outside of the Forum (e.g., on Discord), proposal authors should include relevant links.

Despite this, the proposal was posted on the forum on 1 September. Even more concerning is that a community call slot was booked about 8 minutes before the forum post was submitted. This sequence of actions is not procedural and a blatant violation of due process. It demonstrates disregard for the established rules and for the community’s role in governance.

Even if we disregard the quorum technicality, the outcome was clear: voters and delegates signaled disapproval. That makes genuine community feedback even more important, not less. Instead of rushing, this proposal should have gone back to discussion, allowed time for revisions, and respected the voices of voters who voted NO by incorporating their feedback and concerns.

The cooldown and discussion periods are not insignificant exercises, they are core safeguards to ensure healthy governance. Bypassing them is disrespectful to voters and delegates alike.

The damage is still reversible, and I urge those in charge of governance to consider my position carefully and take corrective action.

3 Likes

GM @Thylacine
“Abstain” is not added to the “No” count. It’s a separate option.

On Celo, voters can choose Yes, No, or Abstain. Abstains are their own category. They count toward quorum and are included in the denominator for the agreement %, which can lower the Yes share, but they are not converted into No votes.

In this specific proposal, the results were:

  • Yes: 1,553,274 (49.4%)
  • No: 1,524,488 (48.5%)
  • Abstain: 67,865 (2.1%)
  • Total: 3,145,627 (significantly below quorum around 11 millions for that time)

For a proposal to pass, it must reach quorum and have at least 60% Yes. Although this proposal had slightly more Yes than No, it did not meet quorum and did not reach 60% Yes. Under the current rules, that outcome is effectively treated the same as a “majority No” case, which means the 28-day cooldown applies.

Moving forward, we think it would be valuable to make these rules more explicit, particularly clarifying how Abstain is handled, the interaction between the 60% Yes threshold and cooldowns, and how failed proposals are categorized.

We will work on a review of the governance documentation so outcomes are always clear.

5 Likes

Hi @yomfana, thanks for raising these points.

We want to be clear that the cooldown period will be fully respected. The proposal will not be resubmitted on-chain until 10th September, in line with the 28-day rule. The rules specify “28 days”, but are not fully explicit on whether this applies from the forum post or from the end of the on-chain vote. We are taking the more conservative interpretation, counting from the referendum completion, which is why we’re waiting until 10th September.

The proposal posted on 1st September is not a resubmission, but a revised draft so the community could review the substantial modifications we’ve made, based both on forum feedback and in close guidance with the Celo Growth team. While the initial version did not meet quorum, it did receive slightly more YES than NO votes, which encouraged us to keep iterating in good faith.

On the community call requirement, it’s worth noting that this rule has already been flexibilised in Season 1 intents. Teams were encouraged to keep working and refining while still following governance safeguards, so this is not the first case where sequencing between the forum post and call has been adapted. This approach was designed to support teams in building without interruption while still respecting the process.

We intend to act transparently and constructively: engaging on the forum, incorporating feedback, and presenting during the call in accordance with procedure. We appreciate the accountability you’re raising and share the commitment to ensuring governance remains both trusted and functional for everyone.

8 Likes

I confirm my participation in Celo Regional Council´s multisig!

This is the wallet of Celo Colombia and I have access and control: 0x12BD1596d7cfbf7c18F08499B54A31C980989070

3 Likes

Hi everyone, Lena here from the DevRel team at Celo Foundation. I want to take a moment to highlight some work that might not be fully visible in the reports and stats that have been shared.

Since joining Celo Foundation at the beginning of 2024, I’ve been working closely with the Celo Africa DAO. The evolution of our collaboration has been incredible. Through a lot of coordination and communication, we’ve reached a point where DevRel understand it’s need from the community DAOs clearly and express them. The creation of the Regional Council was an immense help in scaling, connecting and coordinating with other regions.

Working with communities around the world, each with different contexts and needs, is not easy, and bringing this together in one proposal is a huge task. But it’s also extremely valuable for the work we want to do in the second half of the year and I appreciate the effort that went into this.

Over the past six months, the Regional Council has supported Proof of Ship in many ways: providing mentorship, hosting office hours, judging projects, providing feedback, and coordinating bootcamps, code jams, and mini-hackathons that feed into our main onboarding funnel, Proof of Ship. This program is still a work in progress, and the feedback from the DAOs has been instrumental in improving our processes and making it more accessible.

For maintaining and scaling Proof of Ship we will rely on the Regional Council, to providing a sustainable support system for the builders, building on Celo, for them to be able to scale their projects fast and successfully (90 projects per month).

Trust is build on the ground and that is what I see the role of the Regional Council to take on.

Looking forward to the governance call tomorrow!

10 Likes

Could the authors of this revised proposal please highlight what the changes are between the first proposal and this one? It will make it easier for us to evaluate.

1 Like

Over the past season, I’ve had the opportunity to work closely with several Regional Hubs, especially through Proof of Ship. They’ve helped onboard new builders & projects, provided feedback, supported with judging, and tons more. Their involvement was crucial to helping us scale our developer programs globally.

I also provided input during the proposal restructuring process, and can attest that the V2 proposal is aligned with Celo’s Season 1 intents – particularly with the coordination of four macro-regions and the introduction of standardized metrics and reporting. This is the first time we’ve coordinated across so many different stakeholders, and this revised proposal lays out a clear, measurable plan to drive growth.

On a more personal note, I’ve gotten to know many folks from the Regional Hubs and I’ve seen firsthand how deeply rooted they are in their local communities. Having that kind of on-the-ground presence is essential growing the Celo ecosystem in a meaningful way.

7 Likes

Hello @Thylacine, thank you for your comment.

Yesterday, during the community call, we outlined the main differences between each region’s revised proposals. For Europe specifically, this is a completely new proposal compared to the first version:

  • Previous proposal: focused on onboarding high-tech teams into the Celo ecosystem and creating new local nodes in Europe, starting with TĂĽrkiye.

  • Revised proposal: after feedback and close collaboration with the Celo Growth team, we shifted focus to emerging markets in Europe (Romania, Estonia, Serbia, Finland, and Poland), where there are strong, high-quality developer communities. In partnership with RiseIn, and supported by Celo DevRel and marketing, we’ll run programs to onboard and incentivize developers to build and deploy on Celo.

In addition, we’ll scout and onboard high-level projects and protocols (as we did with Vocdoni last season). This is structured as a funnel strategy, with activities at the top and middle of the funnel designed to engage, onboard, and retain talent in the European ecosystem, while directing them into existing Celo programs such as CPG, Prezenti, Stabila, Proof of Ship, and others.

3 Likes

Thanks @ricaax for the added detail. Unfortunately I didn’t attend the governance call last week so perhaps I should have asked more there.

I think the Regional Council has done some great work in the past and I have no problem with any of the content past or planned for the future.

I guess my major concern is, it appears like you’re changing the proposal merely because it failed to pass governance. If this revised proposal better suits to aims of Season 1, why didn’t you structure it this way to begin with? What new information do you have today that you didn’t have under the first proposal? I don’t truly think there’s any bad faith here, but just optically it feels like “let’s just go again, this has to get through….”

I don’t want to single out Regional Council here specifically here, because I think it’s something starting to creep up on Celo governance in general - but I’m concerned we’re growing a semi-permanent membership list of large proposals that start to grow into Celo treasury cost centres that have to justify their budget every 6 months (or maybe lose it forever).

I think having “enshrined” entities could be long-term dangerous as it threatens the legitmacy of the governance process and disenfranchising voters.

I apply this concern to myself as a member of Prezenti as well. The high bar for transaction or liquidity volume in this Season really is putting us to the test as to whether we can actually attract enough builders and projects of the scale required to in good faith follow the Season 1 intents. If the community had rejected our proposal as it stood when put on-chain, to me that’s a clear sign that we were not aligned with the community or the goals of this Season, and I don’t think it would be reasonable to keep kicking the vending machine in different ways until our approved proposal pops out.

We did however make significant adjustments on feedback before presenting to governance and creating on-chain, so I completely understand that this process this Season has been a little all over the place. So again, I can’t really single out Regional Council here specifically, it’s been a bit of rework from everyone getting in sync with this new top-down intents process.

High level - I support the plans of Regional Council now and in the past (Africa/MiniPay is especially hot).

I just want us collectively (myself as a member of a large proposal) to be willing to put our hands up and say “I don’t think we’re a good fit for this Season” at some point. If everything is just business as usual as per 24 months ago, then the entire “intents” thing is kind of a waste of resources from the Foundation putting time into managing and designing the process.

There will be signs, and if we’re honest, the best signalled of them absolutely has to be “failed to pass governance”. If you can truly say this community signal was “wrong” a few weeks ago, then I’m happy to see where you all can go this Season.

4 Likes