CELOccelerate: Celo Tokenomics Proposal

Today, Celo Core Co. is excited to celebrate the network’s one-year anniversary as an L2, and propose a set of coordinated changes that turn network growth into CELO value, ensuring that the protocol’s economic model keeps pace with its adoption.

Celo was built to create real-world impact at global scale. The network now processes over 700K daily active transactions, powers stablecoin payments across emerging markets through MiniPay, and has become one of the most-used chains in the world. But while usage has grown substantially, protocol revenue and token economics haven’t kept up.

That changes now. With Celo’s transition to an Ethereum L2 complete and the Jovian hardfork on the horizon, the infrastructure is in place to build a durable economic model, one where every transaction on Celo strengthens CELO.

We propose to:

  1. Route all net sequencer revenue to the Community Fund as CELO, including programmatic conversion of stablecoin fees into CELO on the open market
  2. Return and burn the first year of sequencer fees, sending 1.749M CELO collected since the L2 migration to the Community Fund and initiating a governance proposal to burn it
  3. Increase the minimum base fee in a measured, programmatic cadence following the Jovian hardfork
  4. Pause Carbon Offset Fund contributions for five years, given a 25x surplus relative to annual emissions

Sequencer Revenue to CELO Holders

Celo’s L2 architecture generates sequencer revenue. Today, that revenue sits with cLabs. This proposal changes that.

After covering core protocol operating costs (OP Stack, EigenDA, Succinct, and carbon offsets while applicable), all remaining sequencer revenue will be used to acquire CELO and send it to the Community Fund.

The Community Fund is governed by CELO holders through onchain governance. Sending revenue there puts it directly in the hands of token holders, who can decide whether to hold, reinvest, or burn.

Stablecoin Fee Conversion

Thanks to Celo’s fee abstraction, up to 50% of gas fees are paid in USDT and other stablecoins. Under this proposal, those stablecoin fees will be programmatically converted into CELO on the open market before being transferred to the Community Fund.

This is a feature unique to Celo. Fee abstraction doesn’t just make the chain easier to use. It becomes a source of consistent, programmatic buy pressure for CELO, directly tied to real network activity.

Governance Retains Control

Rather than hardcoding a buyback-and-burn, this proposal routes purchased CELO to the Community Fund and lets governance decide what happens next. The community may choose to burn. It may choose to reinvest in ecosystem growth. The structure preserves value accrual while keeping CELO holders in control.

Retroactive Burn

Celo Core Co. has collected approximately 1.749M CELO in sequencer fees since the L2 migration. We are returning all of it to the Community Fund and initiating a separate governance proposal to burn the full amount.

This is a one-time action that signals a clear principle: sequencer revenue belongs to the community, not to Celo Core Co. Going forward, the mechanism described above ensures this is true by default.

Minimum Base Fee Increase

Celo’s network usage has grown substantially, but protocol revenue has not scaled proportionally. Fees remain well below levels that users would meaningfully notice. There is room to improve revenue capture without introducing friction.

The upcoming Jovian hardfork transitions Celo to Optimism’s configurable Minimum Base Fee standard, making it possible to adjust the fee floor programmatically without future hardforks. Following Jovian activation, we propose to begin increasing the minimum base fee:

  • Cadence: base fee increases every week for eight to ten weeks
  • Execution: Via the Celo Core Co. portion of the Security Council (6/8)
  • Approach: Incremental, not a single large adjustment

The guiding principle is simple: increase protocol revenue where there is room to do so, without introducing friction for users. At current fee levels, these adjustments are expected to remain negligible from the user’s perspective.

Celo will continue to prioritize low-cost transactions and accessibility. We will actively monitor CELO price, average transaction fees, and network usage. If fees begin to approach levels that could negatively affect adoption, the pace of adjustments will be slowed or paused. The goal is not to extract more from users. It is to responsibly capture value from a network that is already generating it.

Pause Carbon Offset Fund Contributions

Celo has been carbon-negative since launch. That commitment isn’t changing. But the numbers tell us we can be smarter about capital allocation.

The Carbon Offset Fund currently holds approximately 25x the network’s annual emissions. Pre-L2, Celo produced roughly 563 tCO2 per year. Post-L2, the emissions profile is materially lower. We propose pausing new contributions for five years. Celo will continue operating carbon-negative using the existing surplus, with emissions and coverage ratios reviewed annually.

This frees up capital for the mechanisms described above while preserving the environmental commitment that makes Celo distinct.

Expected Impact

Together, these changes create a flywheel:

  • More usage generates more sequencer revenue
  • More revenue means more CELO acquired and sent to the Community Fund
  • A stronger Community Fund supports ecosystem growth and token value
  • Stronger token economics attract more builders and users

Celo has already proven that real-world adoption at scale is possible. Now the opportunity is to make sure that growth isn’t only visible in usage metrics, but reflected in the economic strength of the network itself.

Thank You

Celo wouldn’t be where it is without the validators, builders, governance participants, and community members who have helped grow the network into one of the most widely used chains in the world. This proposal builds on that foundation and sets CELO up for its next phase.

We welcome community feedback and discussion prior to onchain submission.

Marek Olszewski, Celo Core Co.

16 Likes

Yes! I think this is the perfect timing to capitalize the Celo price to burn a huge portion of the supply.

5 Likes

Thanks @marek and Celo Core Co. team for this proposal. In an increasingly competitive L2 (and alt L1) space, strong tokenomics with full core team alignment and skin-in-the-game is a strategic advantage. In favor of all elements of this proposal.

2 Likes

Hi everyone,

Thank you for putting this proposal together. Refining tokenomics is essential as we transition deeper into the Ethereum L2 ecosystem. However, I’d like to offer a counter-perspective regarding the proposed token burn mechanism.

While burning tokens is often seen as a way to create “scarcity value,” I believe it is economically inefficient for a network in Celo’s current stage of growth. Here are a few points to consider:

  1. Inefficiency of Burns: Token burns often fail to drive long-term fundamental value if they come at the expense of ecosystem expansion. We’ve seen this debate elsewhere; for instance, the Uniswap Unification Proposal (see here) highlights how static mechanisms like fee-switches or burns can be “useless” if the capital isn’t actively working to grow the protocol’s moat.

  2. Growth > Scarcity: Celo’s biggest strength is real-world adoption (Real-World Assets, MiniPay, etc.). Every CELO burned is essentially capital that could have been diverted toward user acquisition, developer grants, or liquidity incentives. In a competitive L2 landscape, “burning” your war chest instead of using it to buy market share and active users (the most valuable metric for any chain) seems counterproductive.

  3. The Opportunity Cost: Especially for a native token like CELO, the focus should remain on utility and circulation within the “Agentic Economy” we are building. Using those funds to onboard the next million users via MiniPay, hackathons or users activations… Providing a much higher ROI for the network than a marginal reduction in supply.

I would suggest we reconsider the burn and instead look at how these funds can be systematically reinvested into Growth and Acquisition programs that drive on-chain activity.

Looking forward to hearing the team’s thoughts on this!

2 Likes

Great proposal, Marek. These changes come at exactly the right time.

What I value most: routing 100% of net sequencer revenue to the Community Fund, with programmatic conversion of stablecoins to CELO, turns real network activity into constant buying pressure. That’s a real differentiator.

The retroactive burn of 1.749M CELO is not just a technical move: it’s a statement of principle about who the protocol’s revenue belongs to.

Celo already has adoption.

This proposal puts economic fuel behind that adoption. I support this direction.

3 Likes

I fully agree..now the time to capitalize on $CELO. Burn the supply to make it rarer.

2 Likes

I think the proposal is excellent, especially the idea of ​​using all the sequencer’s output.

Thanks for the initiative, Marek.

2 Likes

This is exactly why this proposal sends sequencer revenue to the community fund, so that CELO holders can decide if they want to burn, hold, or reinvest the fees.

Hi Marek,

Thank you for this proposal. Bringing sequencer revenues back to the community is exactly the kind of alignment we need. Where I disagree is the last step: burning the first year of accrued CELO.

CELO is not Ethereum. We have a fixed supply and the inflation side has already been reduced materially. Our problem has been weak value accrual to token holders. Burning the accrued CELO creates a scarcity headline but it does not rebuild the link between network usage and holding CELO. It is more important to reward active participation within the network to staked CELO.

I still believe the stronger move is to route those accrued CELO into staking rewards and stream them gradually over 3 years through a transparent on-chain vault. That would begin replacing inflation-only rewards with real network-backed rewards, increase staking participation, strengthen governance and restore confidence. At this stage, Celo needs a mechanism that makes holding CELO rational again.

More usage must translate into more yield.

1 Like

Everything is fine, but we need to consider several key points: how much we paid Opera during our partnership and how much we earned in commissions during this time. We also need to consider how much we plan to earn in the next three years of our partnership with Opera, given the 160 million coins allocated to them. Commission income should cover these costs.

When increasing commissions, we must base our calculations on these data; otherwise, we’ve been operating at a loss for many years.

A loss without the prospect of multiple returns leads to a slowdown in project development, a decrease in capitalization, and a decrease in the project’s attractiveness to new investors. When investors are guaranteed to lose money by investing in the project, this further reduces the project’s overall appeal.

1 Like

According to my calculations, we need to increase the fee to $0.05 per transaction to make cooperation with Opera economically viable. For Celo holders, we could set the fee below $0.01 to attract long-term holders. Attracting one user through Opera costs about $3, and with fees lower than these, we’ll incur ongoing losses and a loss of capitalization/our funds.