Celo Regional Council Season 1 Funding Request V2

Governance Governance Proposals
,
22

Thanks a lot for this thoughtful response and for raising the concern so clearly :folded_hands:t4:

You’re right, Season 1 has been a big adjustment for all of us, and the first proposal from Europe reflected us still adapting to the new intents process. At that stage, we were trying to bridge the way regional hubs had been working until now with the new framework. We also worked closely with the DevRel team, who even set up a ChatGPT assistant to help us check alignment with Season 1 intents. Based on that, and several informal feedback rounds (the last Celo EU proposal had gone through seven versions before we posted it), we felt it was in good shape.

The revised proposal is less about “trying again” and more about a redirection of focus:

  • Closer collaboration with Celo Growth: before they were advising us with tools and feedback; this time we worked hand-in-hand to make sure it’s aligned with the global and regional strategy.

  • Clearer geographic focus: instead of spreading too thin across 10+ countries, we’re focusing on 4–5 emerging European markets with strong developer communities. This also made it natural for TĂźrkiye to migrate into the MENA/APAC hub, where it fits better.

  • New partnership with RiseIn: they bring deep expertise in developer onboarding across Asia and now Eastern Europe, so we can build on their playbook rather than reinventing the wheel.

So the “new information” came from building tighter alignment with Celo Growth and leveraging the RiseIn partnership, which gave us confidence to sharpen the focus and make the proposal more impactful for the budget allocated. This collective effort also reflects a broader acknowledgement of how important regional and local hubs are for the Celo ecosystem and how much value there is in helping them work more efficiently and with the right focus. This round was really a joint effort, with many stakeholders supporting the regions to organize around what matters most, so that the value of local and regional hubs on the ground becomes clearer and more visible.

I also completely share your concern about governance optics. For us, proposals aren’t meant to be “permanent fixtures” but activities and solutions that we adapt based on feedback and alignment. If at some point the community feels the Regional Council (or any of us) is no longer serving Season goals or the ecosystem overall, then stepping back is the right thing to do. In the case of the last Regional Council proposal, it actually received slightly more “Yes” than “No” votes, we just didn’t reach quorum.

Personally, I don’t think a failed vote should always be seen as a clear “not fit for this season’s intents,” especially given the low participation in forum discussions and community calls (often the same few people), as well as the politics involved. To me, there are clear rejections where alignment with the intents just isn’t there and there are cases where a proposal simply needs rework, better focus, or yes, sometimes better politics. I emphasise politics because, unfortunately, governance is still quite centralised today. What we need are clearer signals to distinguish proposals worth reiterating from those that aren’t, along with guidelines to help people vote more consciously, and a broader distribution of voting power to important stakeholders across the ecosystem. The Season 1 intents are a strong foundation for this, since they make it easier to assess whether something is clearly aligned (or not). For me, that’s where a real “no” is obvious.

Really appreciate your support and honesty here :heart: these conversations help keep us accountable and make sure we’re pushing towards real alignment with the ecosystem’s priorities :raising_hands:

3 Likes
23

Thanks @celocouncil and team for the proposal, at my end this proposal is fulfilling all the requirements:

  • Post a proposal in the Celo Forum and leave it for discussion at least for seven (7) days.
  • Present Proposal in a Governance Call and address the feedback received: Proposal was presented during Celo Governance Call #76 | Sept 4th, 2025
  • Cool Off period of 28 days: This period is already over.

With the above said, from my end the proposal is ready to move into the voting phase when proposer wants to move forward or consider is appropriate.

:bangbang: Remember Current Celo Governance Overview & Procedures

To proceed to the submission and voting phase at least two Celo Governance Guardians must post explicitly that the proposal fulfills the requirements to be able to move into the Voting Stage in the proposal thread on the Celo Forum.

Remember next steps

  • Submission of PR to Celo Governance Repository
    Proposers needs to fork the Celo Governance Repository and add a PR including the proposal .md file and json file.
  • Approval of PR by Celo governance Guardians and merge into main branch of Celo Governance Repository.
    Celo Guardians are responsible for conducting a comprehensive review of every Pull Request (PR) to ensure that there is complete alignment and consistency between the final proposal posted in the forum post and the specific files that are being requested to be merged.
    This review process is strictly technical in nature, focusing solely on verifying the authenticity and good faith of the proposers. It does not involve any personal opinions or biases regarding the merits or content of the proposal itself. To maintain the integrity of the Celo Governance repository, it is mandatory to obtain approval from a minimum of two Governance Guardians for each PR before it can be merged into the main branch.
  • OnChain Submission of Proposal
    After PR is merged into main Governance Repo the proposers needs to fork locally the Celo Governance Repository and submit the proposal onchain using the guidelines described in the Celo Docs.

CC: Governance Working Group (@annaalexa @Wade @0xGoldo)

2 Likes
24

Hi @Thylacine

For us @celoafricadao, the change from the first proposal came from 2 main inspirations:

Closer alignment with Growth & ecosystem leads: Following feedback, we worked more closely with the Celo Growth team and other stakeholders to refine priorities, rather than just consulting with them at the end.

Focus on what’s proven: We shifted from broad experimentation to doubling down on what has traction, e.g. developer funnels, Minipay adoption, and incubation programs that are already driving daily transactions.

The inspiration was really a mix of community feedback + ecosystem alignment + seeing where results were strongest. That gave us confidence to double down on focus areas( strategic programs) and make the revised proposal leaner, more targeted, and more impactful.

5 Likes
25

Hello @Thylacine, thank you for raising these points with such clarity and care.

We want to be very clear: this is not a simple re-submission, but a reshaping of the Regional Council’s work into Proposal V2 — informed by feedback, lessons learned, and closer alignment with Season 1 intents.

The previous proposal was more about continuing the work that had already been happening across regions while trying to adapt to the new Season framework. It was broad in scope and transitional in nature, which made sense as we were all still learning how to navigate the new intents process.

Proposal V2 is more focused and intentional. Each region has sharpened its geographic scope:

  • In Africa, the focus builds on what has the traction, i.e, developer funnels, MiniPay adoption and incubation program elevating projects that are driving daily transactions.
  • In Europe, the approach shifted from high-tech team onboarding and node creation to concentrating on emerging developer markets.
  • In LatAm, efforts consolidate community energy across Colombia and Mexico while expanding into Argentina and Brazil.
  • In Asia (MENA/APAC), multiple separate nodes have been aggregated under a single hub led by RiseIn, with clear developer onboarding goals.

Another key difference is how this proposal was shaped. Instead of hubs working largely on their own with feedback loops, this round was developed in close collaboration with Celo Growth (including DevRel), so that activities serve not just the Season 1 intents but also the long-term global strategy for the ecosystem. On top of that, we’ve brought in RiseIn as a partner, leveraging their proven experience in developer onboarding in Asia and Eastern Europe. Budgets are leaner, impact is tied directly to measurable outcomes, and we’ve committed to transparent reporting so the community can hold us accountable.

On your broader point about governance: we fully share the concern. The Regional Council should not become an “enshrined” or semi-permanent budget line. Our role is not to secure indefinite funding but to prove value against the Season’s intents and step back if we’re no longer aligned. For us, proposals are not “fixtures” but high contextualised activities that evolve or end depending on community signal. If at some point the ecosystem feels the Regional Council is not fit for the goals of the Season, then discontinuing it would be the right outcome. Celo Philippines has not participated at this round as they couldn’t relate to this seasons intents, for example. What matters is that the process stays legitimate, voters remain empowered, and the bar for impact continues to rise.

So while it may look like a continuation, the substance is different: the earlier proposal was about bridging into Season 1, while this one is about delivery, alignment, and measurable impact.

We appreciate your thoughtful challenge, it helps us stay accountable and make sure the Regional Council is genuinely serving the community and the ecosystem.

5 Likes
26

It was presented during Governance Call #76 on September 4th, 2025, and the feedback gathered during that session has been incorporated.

With these steps completed, as a celo governance guardian, I consider the proposal ready to proceed to the voting phase at the proposer’s discretion.

2 Likes
27

From the Celo Colombia side, our proposal not only evolved with the feedback we received from stakeholders, the Celo Dev team and others. It also comes forward as part of a coalition with Mexico and CeLatam, focused on building for the future.

  • Closer alignment: we worked hand in hand with Growth, Celo PG and ecosystem leads to make sure our plans match both Season 1 intents and long-term adoption goals.
  • Coalition model: instead of acting separately, Colombia, Mexico and CeLatam are coordinating under one LATAM proposal, each keeping local independence but sharing strategy, milestones and KPIs.
  • Doubling down on traction: in Colombia this means scaling real-world stablecoin use cases (cCOP via TuCop, cashback, Marranitos staking, merchant adoption) that are already proving impact and can be replicated regionally.

The shift came from a mix of ecosystem feedback, stronger alignment and evidence of what is already working. That gave us confidence to make this proposal leaner, more collaborative and future focused.

2 Likes
28

You’re absolutely right!

This response is not only a clarification of the content of the revised proposal, but an example of how using highly LLM-coded linguistic markers — “not only, but” comparatives and emdash — can hollow out the meaning of good faith discourse.

Are we just firing the LLMs at each other until everyone is happy?

My main question I don’t think has really been covered: what new information was available to you between proposal 1 and 2 that prompted the revision?

2 Likes
29

We just want to clarify one point first: none of us in the Regional Council are native English speakers, so yes, we sometimes rely on LLMs to help us make sure our messages are clear in this forum’s working language. That said, the intent is always good-faith discourse, and we’d encourage looking past the style to the substance of what we’re sharing.

On your main question about what new information prompted the revision between Proposal 1 and Proposal 2, here’s the summary that many hubs already pointed out independently as well:

  • Closer collaboration with Celo Growth (including DevRel) allowed us to work hand-in-hand, gaining new insights into which regions, markets, and activities would best serve Season 1’s intents and long-term strategy.

  • Restructuring of the Regional Council: through this collaboration, we realised it would be clearer and more effective to consolidate into 4 macro-regions rather than many separate proposals.

  • New partnership with RiseIn: they brought extensive knowledge of developer communities in Asia and Eastern Europe, that can be applied else where as well, which directly informed the revised geographic focus and activities.

In short, the new information originated from the deeper alignment work with Celo Growth and input from RiseIn, which reshaped our understanding of where and how the Regional Council can add the most value.

3 Likes
30

I voted No on the previous proposal. As mentioned by others, I’m concerned about the recurring large, semi-annual requests from the Community Fund. This isn’t going to be sustainable. I’m going to vote abstain on this revised version.

I do prefer this version and I’m glad to see TXs and TVL included. I’m looking forward to see how you’re going to track these KPIs, avoid double-counting across overlapping programs and if you have any anti-gaming criteria for TXs/TVL (e.g. minimum value, retention windows, unique users etc.)

Most importantly, I want to see a credible path to self-sufficiency. You’ve built real expertise on Celo in your region, please consider turning that into training/consulting, partnerships and sponsorships so this work can rely less on the Community Fund over time.

I’m hopeful about the impact here and will watch the metrics and rigor around how results are measured.

4 Likes
31

Thanks, appreciate that. Apologies if I was a little too snarky :blush:

1 Like
32

Hey hey, just chiming in here. I share similar concerns as mentioned above on the sustainability of the Community Fund, but at the same time I am excited about some of the scope of the Regional Hubs and see some potential synergies with the wider work of CeloPG + what is going on in the Gitcoin ecosystem.

Should this proposal pass, one potential opportunity for Celo Regional Hubs is the emerging GG24 Local Funding Round that will support a cohort of local hubs to design and operate their own funding programs.

TLDR: Proposed local programs can have diverse scopes — from regenerative projects and NGOs to civic initiatives, hackathons, or learning hubs — but all with the shared outcome of growing meaningful adoption of Ethereum (including Celo / L2s). Eligible programs will need to have a minimum amount of initial co-funding secured, a clear and right-sized scope, and a team to deliver.

This could be one way to get extra value for Celo by pulling in resources from other capital sources through matching on matching.

See –> Local Funding Programs GG24 - Register Interest! for more info + register interest form.

6 Likes
33

It feels unusual that the Celo Regional Council proposal is being scrutinized so heavily, while other similar proposals haven’t received the same level of review. Of course, questioning and commenting on proposals is important, but why is one proposal examined so intensely, while other proposals of similar size or scope seem to receive little or no scrutiny?

  • Celo Regional Council asked for:
    • 392,000 cUSD
    • 138,000 CELO (≈ $41,400 at $0.30)
    → ~$433,400 total

For comparison:

  • CeloPG asked for:
    • 288,500 cUSD
    • 875,000 CELO (≈ $262,500 at $0.30)
    → ~$551,000 total

    If we include OP:
    • 250,000 OP (≈ $175,000 at $0.70)
    → ~$726,000 total
    :backhand_index_pointing_right: CeloPg Season 1 Funding Request

  • Celo Foundation asked for:
    • 4,545,454.55 CELO (≈ $1,500,000 USD, based on 90-day average CELO)
    :backhand_index_pointing_right: Celo Foundation Season 1 Funding Proposal

  • Stabila asked for:
    • 500,000 cUSD
    • 2,885,246 CELO (≈ $880,000 USD, using 30-day trailing avg CELO price of $0.305 from June 24 – July 23, 2025)
    → ~$1,380,000 total
    :backhand_index_pointing_right: Stabila Season 1 Funding Request

  • Prezenti asked for:
    • 1,746,267,000 CELO tokens (≈ $470,000 USD)
    :backhand_index_pointing_right: Prezenti Season 1 Funding Request

Looking at these numbers, it is clear that other proposals have requested equal or larger amounts, yet the Regional Council request (~$433k) is facing disproportionate scrutiny.

Even if the Regional Council and its HUBs are not formally part of the Celo Foundation, people on the ground recognize Celo HUBs as the presence of Celo itself. Without their work, there would be little to no representation of Celo in many regions.

Other ecosystems already fund ambassador programs to ensure global visibility and community engagement. Celo itself previously hired country and regional managers to achieve the same with salaries maybe around $5,000 or more per month (Just guessing from market numbers)?

Now, instead of a top-down structure, Regional HUBs are community-driven initiatives that take on this responsibility giving Celo grassroots visibility and engagement in a way that is more authentic, sustainable, and community-led.

In light of this, it may be worth considering whether the current level of scrutiny aligns with the proposal’s scale and impact, and whether governance processes can ensure fair and consistent evaluation for all community-driven initiatives.

10 Likes
34

Fair comment, but I feel most of the recent commentary in this thread has been more about the optics of re-submitting a failed proposal, rather than the content of the proposal itself. The actual work the Regional Council has done and will do in the future is great and useful in my opinion.

I share the concern of large proposals like Stabilia and CICLOPS and have commented on those as well.

1 Like
35

OK looks like this is clearly passing now, which looks like a signal from the stakeholders that this program has been reshaped to be strongly aligned with the goals of Season 1.

I’m going to Abstain on procedural grounds, not the content of the proposal itself. I’m definitely not a “No” here of course, but I want to just go on record that I have some concerns about governance management and the propriety of resubmissions (I think made clear enough in all my responses to this thread).

A little bit painful to do so, because I know many of the team’s work and believe a local focused coordination layer can be useful, especially in areas where Mini apps are gaining traction.

It’s unfortunate (as mentioned by others) that this level of scrutiny came on a team with of a lot of skin in the game and past work in the ecosystem. Hopefully we can all take the time going forward to really dig into all proposals as treasury runway gets tighter and tighter. I think Season 1 will be a good test-bed for what’s working and what isn’t, so in a sense of farness it’s good that Regional Council are getting a chance to prove their worth like many other proposals who have been mainstays of governance approvals over the last couple of years.

4 Likes