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.