CeloPG H2 2024 Budget [DRAFT]

Title: Funding Request: CeloPG H2 2024 Budget [DRAFT]
Authors: Luuk Weber & Monty Bryant

To be added after the Draft Phase.

Building on the successes and positive impact demonstrated in the CeloPG H1 Progress Report, we aim to leverage the knowledge, network, and tools established to further accelerate Celo Public Goods development and streamline the effectiveness of the Celo Community Treasury spending.

In the coming six-month period, we aim to focus on the following points:

  • Leveraging opportunities within Optimism and the broader superchain to enhance the reach and impact of the CeloPG programs.

  • Focusing on builders, particularly related to the OP Celo testnet and mainnet launch.

  • Further Improving on-chain coordination, reporting, and collaboration within the wider Celo ecosystem.


CeloPG H2 Intents and Budgets
Following the CeloPG H1 Report and Reflections, we’ve identified the following strategies (referred to as Intents from this point onwards to match the Optimism terminology) as most effective at supporting the regeneration of the Celo ecosystem.

Below is a short rationale for including each intent, followed by an overview of the program budget of 850,000 cUSD + 400,000 CELO.

Regional DAOs: The regional DAOs have become more transparent and have integrated further into the Celo ecosystem. With increased oversight and collaboration, we believe there is merit in extending this initiative for another six months; however, given the overbudgeting that happened in H1, we propose reducing the size of this intent budget to $200,000 (down from $500,000).

Celo Project Incubation: In H1, one group was funded through this intent (Celo Camp), with two other groups receiving funding directly through Celo Governance (Outlier Ventures and Red Beard Ventures). With multiple programs still operating, we believe analyzing the results and insights of the overall intent and each program before allocating additional capital is the right path forward, and a refined program election process should be established to increase effectiveness and fit.

Celo Builder Grants: Given the number of builders who asked and benefited from this in H1, we believe it’s essential to have Grant programs that allocate one-off grants to specific proposals. In the Prezenti H1 Report, they showcased capacity and interest in running another round of Celo Builder Grants. We believe the most efficient way forward is to top up Prezenti’s budget with 225,000 cUSD to have them run their program until the end of the year.

QF and RPGF Programs: The H1 program delivered a high ROI, both in terms of capital multiplying (e.g. GG20 distributing 3.74x of the Celo funds committed to projects) and ecosystem development, with many builders joining or remaining in the ecosystem as a result. We believe that continuing to enhance these programs, as well as their supporting tools and mechanisms is key to running efficient on-chain grant programs at scale. This will also serve to further strengthen Celo’s alignment and positioning within the Optimism ecosystem. Therefore, we have allocated 200,000 cUSD and 250,000 CELO to run another CeloRPGF round, this time focused on ‘Celo Citizens’, and for multiple programs around GG21 (August) and GG22 (October) on the newly deployed Gitcoin Grant Stack on Celo.

Digital Infrastructure (NEW): In H1, we managed to get multiple teams to deploy their infrastructure on Celo for free to support program operations, including Coinshift, EAS, EasyRPGF, and Karma. We issued some small grants from the Steward program ops budget to provide some support; however, this was far under the team’s costs. With essential ecosystem infrastructure such as Celo Station ready to be launched, we believe it’s valuable for CeloPG to manage some of the Digital Infrastructure agreements and support. A budget of 50,000 cUSD and 50,000 CELO has been assigned for this initiative.

Operations: After operating the CeloPG Programs, providing accounting and communication for the wider Celo ecosystem, and creating a reward structure for Celo Guardians in H1, we want to continue streamlining the overall Celo ecosystem operations under CeloPG. We propose extending the Operations with Community Moderation in alignment with the draft by 0xGoldo in addition to the existing Steward and Guardian tasks. The operations budget remains the same at 175,000 cUSD + 100,000 CELO.

Budget Overview
Below is a table describing each intent and its associated budget. The CeloPG H2 Budget (DRAFT) sheet provides a detailed budget overview of CeloPG H2 budget and operations.

Intent Budget Description
Regional DAOs 200,000 cUSD Budget for operating the Celo Regional DAOs that support growth and development in key geographic regions.
Celo Builder Grants 225,000 cUSD Budget for running Celo-native grants and identifying and funding requests for proposals. 25K for Program Support Costs.
QF and RPGF Programs 200,000 cUSD + 250,000 CELO Budget for running Citizen RPGF(250K CELO), Two Celo rounds in GG21 ($75K), one Celo round in GG22 ($50K), $50k for program matching, and $25k cUSD for Program Support Costs.
Digital Infrastructure 50,000 cUSD + 50,000 CELO Budget for maintaining and supporting key digital infrastructure, including Celo Station.
Operations 175,000 cUSD + 100,000 CELO Budget for Celo Public Goods Ops, including Stewards, Guardians, Moderation, legal, and accounting.
TOTAL w/o OP x CELO 850,000 cUSD + 400,000 CELO The total CeloPG budget without any potential OP x CELO programs.

OP x Celo Programs

In addition to the core CeloPG programs, there is a significant opportunity to apply for the Optimism Season 6 Intent Budget to run large-scale co-funded programs. Optimism Collective has set aside 12M OP for chain-specific grant programs supporting the Superchain through intent 3B.

Based on the progress made in H1, we believe CeloPG is uniquely positioned to apply for these funds. As such, we aim to write two grant applications for up to a total of 1,250,000 OP. The following proposed programs are:

  1. Optimism x Celo Real World Builder Program | 250K—1M OP / CELO: This program focuses on projects that ship open-source software and have a positive impact on physical communities and environments.

  2. Optimism x Celo Climate Tech Program | ~250,000 OP / CELO: This program targets projects that develop open-source software to advance Climate Action.

The application window opens on July 18th, and we propose that the Celo Community Treasury match any OP allocated by the Optimism Collective to a joint Grants Program. This match would be a maximum of 1.25M CELO, and the program costs up to 100,000 cUSD. We believe this commitment from Celo would further increase our chances of securing OP funding and provide a compelling ROI for our community and ecosystem.

If secured, we plan to collaborate with existing and new tech/program partners, such as EasyRPGF, Gitcoin, Karma, Talent, Superfluid, Climate Collective, and Climate Coordination Network, to maximize these programs’ impact, efficiency, and effectiveness.

Below is an overview of the maximum CeloPG H2 costs, including potential OP x CELO programs.

Intent Budget Description
OP x CELO Programs 100,000 cUSD + 1,250,000 CELO The budget will be offered to match the OP Grant requests of Real World Builders and/or Climate Tech programs. If an OP Grant is received, every OP will be matched with up to 1 CELO.
TOTAL incl OP x CELO 950,000 cUSD + 1,650,000 CELO The maximum CeloPG budget if 1,25M OP is approved for co-funded programs.

In H1, the decision-making power for proposal approvals rested with Celo Governance voters, not the Stewards. Stewards attempted to streamline this process by creating a CeloPG Snapshot space but faced limitations due to the integration of Locked Celo as a voting token. This necessitated a return to regular Celo Governance, resulting in additional workload and dependency.

In addition, because CeloPG Stewards did not have significant influence in approving proposals, they could not fully ensure the alignment of approved projects with ecosystem goals. As such, key stakeholders have expressed a desire for CeloPG to take on a more managerial role, ensuring the quality of proposals and programs, rather than just an administrative and facilitating role.

To address these issues and further enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of CeloPG, we propose the following governance structure:

  1. Governance of Budget Approval: The seven CeloPG Stewards (with potential future expansion to include Delegates) will oversee the approval of the CeloPG H2 budget for the Regional DAO and Digital Infrastructure intents through the Public Snapshot space. As in H1, Stewards are not allowed to vote on proposals that they are directly connected to.

  2. Celo Builder Grants Allocation: The Celo Builder Grants budget for H2 will be allocated to Prezenti to extend their current initiative to up to 225,000 cUSD, which aligns with their H1 reflection.

  3. QF and RPGF Programs: We will continue to explore and enhance these innovative mechanisms for greater community involvement in resource allocation. For example, there is potential to increase the number and diversity of Celo ‘badge holders’ for RPGF or increase the weight that reputable Celo community members have in Celo-based QF rounds.

By implementing this structure, with a reduced scope for Celo PG H2 (reduced budget and fewer intents), we can sharpen our focus and increase commitment to the remaining intents. We believe this approach aligns with stakeholder desires and effectively streamlines the allocation of Celo Community Treasury resources without overburdening Celo Governance.

Payment Logistics
CeloPG’s programs will operate its resources comparable to H1, creating two multi-sigs (4 out of 7): one for the overall CeloPG H2 budget and one for Steward operations. The existing CeloPG H1 Budget and Stewards Multisigs will continue to be operated and accounted for until July 31st when any remaining funds will be returned to the Celo Community Treasury.

The OP x CELO program budget will be separated into a third multi-sigs (4 out of 7), which will only be activated when Optimism Collective approves at least 1 CeloPG Grant application.

Legal Representation
The Celo Public Goods Steward operations will again be coordinated by the Regenerative Finance Foundation, a non-profit foundation mandated to support the experimentation and growth of Regenerative Finance at large and function as the counterparty for specific CeloPG programs. To increase representation and alignment, we propose replacing one of the current board members with Monty Bryant.

Steward Overview
In H1, the structure consisted of one lead, four active stewards (25 hours a month), and four advisory stewards (10 hours a month). Our experience showed that smaller groups of two to three people could more effectively coordinate most CeloPG tasks. Larger meetings with nine participants often hindered efficient input and participation. We believe a refined steward structure would be more effective and efficient based on these insights.

For H2, we propose the following changes to the CeloPG Stewards to enhance the quality of deliverables:

  • 1 Lead: Luuk will continue as the lead, maintaining a commitment of 100 hours per month.
  • 1 Co-Lead: Monty will increase his commitment from 25 to 60 hours monthly.
  • 5 Stewards: Five additional stewards will oversee operations and wallets, provide feedback and support, and vote on relevant programs. Each will commit 15 hours per month.

This revised structure reduces the number of stewards from nine to seven. The remaining five stewards will be selected in the coming weeks. Luuk and Monty will consult with current stewards to determine who wishes to remain active. They will also consider adding one to two new stewards to bring fresh perspectives and enhance group operations.


GM @LuukDAO !

First of all, thanks for putting this proposal together :pray:

I believe this is a massive upgrade for the Celo community, and builds up on top of the learnings from CeloPG H1! Promoting Monty to Co-Lead sounds about right, you two have informally been leading CeloPG H1 anyway, so this decision is kind of a no-brainer.

I’d very happy to be considered again for a Stewardship role, I’ve been very vocal and outspoken during CeloPG H1 and I think those same skills will be fundamental for H2. The fact that I’m also quite involved in the OP/Superchain world is a plus imo :yellow_circle: :red_circle:

PS: Love the Real World Builders :green_heart: Celo and Optimism need more Builders, this is the way!


Thank you @LuukDAO for putting this together!

I’m a strong supporter of this initiative. While it’s still in its early stages, I’ve seen the value of CeloPG in creating consistent and sustainable sources of funding for projects within our ecosystem, which is essential for attracting and retaining high-impact developers and high-traffic projects.

Here are some key points I’d like to highlight:

Celo Project Incubation

One of the primary goals I’d like to see incubation programs focus on is ensuring that projects can scale and grow transaction volume – so that they are support Celo’s target goal of 25 million daily transactions by 2025.

I fully support this approach. Continuous funding should be allocated to programs demonstrating success and clear metrics. Tracking metrics using different analytics tools (as seen here) can help ensure we focus resources on initiatives that drive tangible results.

QF and RPGF Programs

I’d like to emphasize the importance of experimenting with onchain funding mechanisms (like QF and RetroPGF) to allocate capital. These capital allocation mechanisms make it possible to distribute funding in a transparent and fairer manner, limiting reliance on slower, bureaucratic governance systems.

Continuous RetroPGF rounds are crucial to building momentum and attracting builders, as it helps create a sustainable source of funding. Also, each round gets better and better at accurately assessing what is impactful, so we can closer to distributing funding in ways that increase value to the overall ecosystem.

I envision a future where most coordinated funding is distributed through various capital allocation mechanisms. These can work together with other ecosystems (like OP retroogf, DRIPS, Hypercerts) and be stacked like lego blocks to create sustainable and durable sources of funding for high-impact projects.

Digital Infrastructure (NEW)

I highly highly support this. Deploying new infrastructure on Celo is can be a slow, burdensome, and political process. Also, it can be challenging for one individual to know every new trending protocol and ensure its deployed on Celo so that the community can use it.

Having a dedicated team to identify tools and integrate with trending infrastructure will significantly add value to our ecosystem. In general, think it’s good to empower communities to seek out and implement new infrastructure that’s crucial for our growth.

OP x Celo Programs

The OP retropgf rounds have garnered significant attention and are central to the Superchain economy’s value. The OP x Celo program is a smart and strategic move that can align Celo next to Optimism narrative and vision for creating regenerative economies, but with an added focus on climate and real world builders. It can also help bridge aligned users from the Superchain into the Celo ecosystem :slight_smile:

Thanks again Luuk for the detailed budget proposal draft. I’m happy to continue my role as a steward. However, I also recognize its very important that we have a mix of new people and fresh ideas take on stewardship. Either way, will continue to support this initiative!


Thanks a lot for publishing this proposal and for all the good work started with the H1 initiative @LuukDAO.

The continuation of QF and RPGF programs is positive, but it is essential to ensure that these programs are inclusive and transparent in their operation. May I ask you more details about the Celo Citizens RPGF round? I would like to understand better how it differs from the H1 RPGF initiative.

Something that I really liked about H1 CPG was the forum post of Celo Steward about each governance vote and the rationale behind it. Unfortunately it was adopted and updated only by you (@LuukDAO) and @juancamp1987.
With the increase in decision power over the Regional DAOs and Digital Infrastructure intents I think is crucial to have this forum threads were each Steward will signal their voting intentions and reasoning prior to the vote or immediately after it.

At the end of theCeloPGH1 progress report you mentioned the following: [quote=“LuukDAO, post:1, topic:8126”]
We see great potential in expanding the usage of Hats throughout the Celo ecosystem and further integrating the onchain options available, such as tying the Hats to multi-sig signing rights and governance voting power.

Is it something that is going to happen in H2?
Would be cool to have this implemented so for example to have a Prezenti.eth multisig, a Celoguardian.eth multisig a Celomoderator.eth multisig, all empowered by CeloPG.eth with freedom of spending the intent allocated budget.

Regarding the digital infrastructure intent, is it possible somewhere to recommend tools? I have few projects on my watchlist that I would love to see on Celo :slight_smile:

Will be the name list of Steward defined before the proposal submission?


Hi Team,

First, I want to thank not only @LuukDAO, the whole Team Involved in this initiative including @olarte @MayaRB @Thylacine @pcbo @mbarbosa @MontyMerlin @sophia and Myself.

Everyone involved dedicate their efforts, work and dedication put into the Celo Public Goods initiative. It’s been inspiring to see the progress we’ve made and the impact we’ve had on our ecosystem.

As we move into the next phase with the CeloPG H2 2024 proposal, I would like to allow other members of the community to take my position on this Guild but not before reaffirming my commitment with this initiative, and maybe come back over later :muscle:. I believe my experience in Grants, RetroPGF, Impact Evaluation, knowledge about the Web3 Ecosystem and insights from H1 can continue to add value as we strive to meet celo ambitious goals.

While I am enthusiastic about the direction, I think it’s crucial that we keep maintaining a balanced and inclusive approach in the decision-making processes. Ensuring that all voices within the stewardship team are heard and that responsibilities are distributed equitably will be key to CeloPG success. This approach not only aligns with Celo principles but also enhances the resilience and credibility of our initiatives.

Additionally, I believe it’s essential that we continue to uphold the highest standards of transparency and integrity in all our programs. By regularly reviewing CeloPG processes and outcomes, we can ensure that we remain true to CeloPG commitment to fairness and inclusivity. This also is aligned with more On-Chain metrics as is proposed.

I also noticed some discussions around the planned budget concerning the roles of Celo Guardians. I would like to emphasize the crucial role that Celo Guardians play as the superior board authority managing the entire on-chain governance in Celo. The Celo Public Goods initiative, while impactful, is a community initiative with a clear scope focused on running public goods initiatives. Maintaining this distinction is important for the coherence and efficiency of our governance structure.

Regarding the Celo Communities Guild proposal by @0xGoldo, it’s important to note that this initiative was intended to be submitted under Celo Grants & Requests for Proposals and is designed to operate with its own autonomy. As 0xgoldo stated, “One of the main motives for this proposal was to decentralize operations to potentially create a more autonomous future for the Celo moderators and community.” This separation of initiatives with different scopes ensures the necessary degree of autonomy and decentralization.

Lastly, I’m curious about the decision to decrease the number of people involved in the stewardship instead of growing the team. Additionally, could we get more clarity on the names of the stewards who will be rotated out?

Thank you for considering my thoughts. I look forward to working closely with all of you to continue building a regenerative digital economy.


Thank you for sharing this insightful post @LuukDAO. I’ve had the privilege of running EasyRPGF rounds with various ecosystems, including Celo. I want to express my sincere appreciation for the collaboration we’ve experienced with you, @MontyMerlin, and the other stewards throughout this round.

Celo was one of the ecosystems in our pilot 1 of EasyRPGF, and I’m pleased to say it has been one of our smoothest rounds to date. In fact, Celo was the first ecosystem to complete the round end-to-end within the decided timelines. The entire process was very efficient, which speaks volumes about the dedication and organization of the Celo team.

We at Gitcoin firmly believe that Celo has tremendous potential and is ideally positioned to experiment with and implement multiple grant programs. We’re thrilled about the prospect of further collaboration with you, Monty, and the team to design CeloRPGF round 2, with a focus on citizens. Additionally, we’re excited to explore other rounds on Gitcoin’s grants stack, which now fully supports Celo.

As Gitcoin evolves to embrace multiple mechanisms, I’m confident that together we can identify and deploy new, innovative approaches while driving growth through grants. Personally, I find the vision behind Celo truly inspiring, and I’m looking forward to playing my part in it.

Thank you once again for your leadership and collaboration.


Very excited to have you here, Sejal, and thanks for the kind words.

It was a pleasure collaborating in H1, and I agree that there is a lot of potential to continue building on our shared visions.

Will carve out some thoughts for you + the wider Gitcoin ecosystem to play a role in CeloPG H2 :slight_smile:


Thanks for being part of CeloPG H1 and everything you do for the Celo ecosystem!

The number of hats you wear—often without recognition or rewards—shows how much you care about Celo.

As noted above in this thread, I believe structure is a critical element of any DAO - and that “decentralization” and “autonomy” are only possible within the organization’s boundaries, aka in a way that realizes the shared vision as best as possible. I genuinely hope that CeloPG and its stewards will have an enabling role, increase context for all participating, and improve coordination.

On that note, I strive to have clear (revokable) roles with quality deliverables and a clear overview of the ecosystems. It’s not about decentralization vs centralization but about collective accountability and effective scoping and execution of tasks.

As described in the H1 retro, I often felt that in H1, it was hard to coordinate closely with all stewards as the group was large (9 people). This made it hard to coordinate calls and get buy-in from everyone in a quick timeframe, and it also led to meetings often being one-sided.

The argument is that a group of 7 more committed individuals will be able to coordinate better to improve program design and execution relative to the 9-person set-up we had in H1.

We’ll ofcourse continue to document our learnings, and I hope that with the transition to CEL2 and the launch of Celo Station we can some elements of CeloPG into a much larger group of for example Delegates, with the program execution still being taken care of by a smaller group.


Hey @0xGoldo

Thanks for your input and for iterating on the Moderation proposal!

  1. The Celo Citizen Program will focus on Individuals instead of Projects. Where CeloRPGF0 was focused on projects that build on Celo, the Citizen round will aim to recognize and reward personal contributions to the Celo ecosystem, such as onboarding users, moderating channels, and voting on proposals. The Citizen program can hopefully play a bigger role in Delegation and Stewardship in the Celo ecosystem! We take inspiration from how Gitcoin and Optimism have previously run Citizen rounds.

  2. On the Hats structuring, yes, I imagine we would implement a more advanced system (also with the account and ENS structure you mention) in this coming cycle. We’ll definitely use .eth (we already have celopg.eth as the main ENS) and can even expand to .celo domains, too!

  3. Yes, feel free to suggest a project, but we will also establish a submission/application process if the proposal for H2 passes.

  4. Yes, I do think it’s best for this proposal to already include the 7 stewards. Monty and I have met with a dozen people over the past weeks and we’re trying to establish a well-balanced group together. Hope to be able to update this thread tomorrow or Wednesday latest with an updated proposed budget (including small changes to the Prezenti budget and Moderator budgets) and an initial list of potential stewards!


Gm team!

First of all, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the entire Celo Public Goods (CPG) team, especially @LuukDAO and @m-chrzan. It is truly inspiring to see how this initiative is reshaping the Celo community.

One of the key topics you mentioned in the new proposal is coordination. I have previously shared my thoughts on the necessity of better alignment between community initiatives, such as regional DAOs. This proposal represents a significant improvement opportunity in that regard.

Additionally, the focus on reinforcing the connection with Optimism’s superchain through the Optimism x Celo Real World Builder Program and Optimism x Celo Climate Tech Program are excellent initiatives. These will undoubtedly help build a more interoperable and robust ecosystem.

Lastly, I am looking forward to the upcoming season of regional DAOs. We have demonstrated the value of having specialized teams work on specific tasks, and I am confident that better coordination will make a substantial difference.

Once again, thank you to the CPG team and the entire ecosystem for pushing these incredible initiatives forward.


Thanks @LuukDAO for crafting this overview and sharing what are the new initiatives going forward.

I believe the great transparency and continuos review of past programs is a foundational stone to ensure that CeloPG continues to deliver value to the ecosystem and makes a good use of the funding committed to diverse initiatives.

Having been part of the team supporting the CeloPG team in running their RPGF Program and seen first hand the care and thought that went into its design, I know that innovation and testing new primitives as well as bringing new infrastructure that aligns with this goal is in the mind of the CeloPG team and am excited to continue to contribute to this effort.

As a strong participant in the OP Ecosystem I hope that this knowledge and context will serve to further the grow Celo’s role within the Superchain. Additionally, I strongly believe that through programs such as the Regional DAOs, Celo is uniquely positioned to tap into a new audience of Real World Builders and Climate Tech.

I’d like to highlight that the last point in which the team is looking to focus on is of great importance:

Reporting and continued evaluation of funding programs is vital to ensure that:

  1. The mechanisms serve the goals intended through the program,
  2. The results remain aligned with both short term and long term goals of the team; mainly through using different tools.

Celo has an incredible potential to be one of the first ecosystems to build a strong multi-mechanism approach to funding it’s growth and I’m excited to be able to contribute to this, specially as someone that was inspired to join the blockchain ecosystem due to Celo’s mission.

Thank you for the leadership and thought that you have placed in creating a clear roadmap to further this mission @LuukDAO and @MontyMerlin.


Thanks to everyone who left a comment over the past few days. After a dozen stakeholder meetings, we’ve just submitted the (near final) CeloPG H2 2024 proposal in a new forum thread. Ideally, we would submit this for Vote on Friday after Thursday’s Governance meeting.

Changes in the updated proposal from this initial draft:

  • Changed the budget of Moders to 45,000 cUSD + 1,500 Celo for H2 in line with their updated proposal.
  • Changed Guardian rewards to remain at the current 1,250 cUSD monthly level.
  • Updated Prezenti (Celo Grants) budget to 250K cUSD, in line with their updated H2 plan..
  • Reduced the Digital Infrastructure budget significantly to 25k cUSD as Celo Station will now be launched by cLabs instead.
  • Added proposed names of the seven CeloPG Stewards for H2, including two new Stewards.

The overall ask doesn’t change much from this initial draft; the regular budget is now 875K cUSD + 325k CELO instead of the drafted 850k cUSD + 400K CELO.

We hope all stakeholders and Celo voters are happy with these changes and look forward to another six months of CeloPG programs!


Laura - so great to see you here!

I’ve been a huge fan of your work and truly admire the incredible contributions you’ve made within the OP ecosystem – especially your work creating the Impact Evaluation Framework for OP RetroPGF rounds.

In fact, this evaluation framework inspired how we did retroactive project evaluations for the past Celo RetroPGF round. I love the incredible level of detail, holistic focus and clearly defined metrics that you defined for how badgeholders should evaluate projects and allocate capital. I believe that by retroactively funding projects based off of this framework, we can do more to grow and advance the Celo ecosystem.

Agreed – smart systems and scientific approaches to allocating capital is key to funding ecosystem growth. Excited to have your expertise contribute to the Celo ecosystem!