CeloPG Season 1 - Impact Report

This progress report provides an overview of the CeloPG Season 1 *initiative, which commenced in July 2025 and concluded in December 2025.

Summary

Season 1 marked the first 6-month cycle supported by formal Intents and an Ecosystem budget in line with Rene’s Vision 2030.

In line with these guidelines, CeloPG operated as a builder team dedicated to attracting, nurturing, and growing projects on Celo to regenerate the network and treasury while creating the conditions for prosperity.

Our primary focus was on (1) expanding the reach of ecosystem programs and overall data quality, attracting (2) at least 50% in extra resources to the builder programs, and (3) increasing chain revenue and onchain activity.

We accomplished these goals by facilitating 5 different ecosystem programs, in collaboration with partners including Snapshot, Divvi, Talent, DevRel Team, Karma, Celo Camp, Gitcoin, Ethereum Foundation and providing supporting ecosystem services.

This season, we greatly matured our tools and methods, and we’re now at a point where CeloPG’s programs provide a rich dataset on the majority of Celo ecosystem projects. As can be seen in the CeloPG S1 Program dashboard, we produced.

We also iterated on the (right) definition of project stages - maturity classification based on onchain metrics - through regular iterations of the Proof of Impact program stages.

The combination of the programs allows us to, in a near automated and data-driven way, get a clear understanding of the state, traction and potential of ecosystem projects - allowing us to further optimise program design and resource allocation.

Our strategic collaboration with Gitcoin has also allowed us to continue to operate at the cutting edge of Public Goods funding and Ethereum ecosystem co-funding, resulting in Celo being the most used network in GG24 and over $425k being allocated to Celo-aligned projects. We also saw innovations, such as Trust Graph and Regen Claims selecting Celo as their primary chain as an indirect result of this partnership.

We managed to execute our Season 1 plans well within budget, having sufficient leftover cUSD that will likely allow CeloPG to operate Season 2 without having to request any cUSD for operations. For 2026 - we want to focus on “Tokenised Acceleration”, identifying, attracting and supporting the best teams to build successful businesses on Celo and tokenise (a share) of their efforts, drive priority metrics including chain revenue, dApps revenue, Treasury size and CELO demand.

Budget and Spending

A total budget of 288,500 cUSD, 875,000 CELO, and 250,000 OP was approved for the CeloPG Season 1 programs, with an additional $12,000 cUSD projected to be generated until the end of the year through our CeloPG Validator nodes.

At the of the season on December 17th, we have spent and allocated (marked with an * in the overview below) a combined total of 232,500 cUSD and 604,250 CELO, and 212,500 OP. We anticipate completing all current programs and closing out Season 1 within budget, with an estimated 56,000 cUSD, 270,750 CELO, and 37,500 OP remaining unspent.

If no Season 1 CeloPG program proposal is approved by January 31st, 2026, this remaining balance will be returned to the Celo Community Treasury. Otherwise, it will be transferred to the CeloPG Season 2 treasury.

Initiative S1 Budget Spent Remaining
Support Streams 150,000 CELO + 150,000 OP 37,500 CELO + 112,500 OP 112,500 CELO + 37,500 OP
Proof of Ship 100,000 CELO 18,000 CELO 82,000 CELO
Impact Rewards 250,000 CELO + 100,000 OP 200,000 CELO + 100,000 OP 50,000 CELO
Contributor Rewards 100,000 CELO 100,000 CELO* 0
CeloPG Development Grants 50,000 cUSD 25,000 cUSD 25,000 cUSD
Treasury, Marketing, and Events 32,500 cUSD 27,500 cUSD 5,000 cUSD
CeloPG Program Ops 106,000 cUSD + 125,000 CELO 80,000 cUSD + 123,750 CELO 26,000 cUSD + 1,250 CELO
Celo x Gitcoin (max) 100,000 cUSD + 150,000 CELO 100,000 cUSD + 125,000 CELO 25,000 CELO
TOTAL 288,500 cUSD + 875,000 CELO + 250,000 OP + 232,500 cUSD + 604,250 CELO + 212,500 OP 56,000 cUSD + 270,750 CELO + 37,500 OP

Celo Ecosystem Programs

Our team has designed and implemented the following Celo Ecosystem Programs. Click on the program title to view the full program page on our platform:

Proof of Impact

Operated in collaboration with Divvi, a fully onchain reward program offering a streamlined and transparent system to reward apps based on the gas fees their users generate, reinforcing long-term network growth, aka growing the Celo pie. This program optimises to reward projects in their MVP stage and beyond, comparable to Stages 1 - 4 as articulated in the Season 1 intent.

The program measured the total gas consumption, total users, and total txs per project over a period of 2 weeks. The program saw a steady rise in usage cycle over cycle, which is likely a combination of overall increased adoption, support streams, incentives flowing and more projects joining the program over time.

In Cycle 8, over 1.5M txs (about 7% of total) and 295k users (about 18%) were measured and rewarded through Proof of Impact. Given that a significant share of activity is related to token transfers, we believe the actual dApp impact penetration of Proof of Impact is larger. Each month, CeloPG pushes a CSV into Karma, which assigns all impact data to the respective projects for lifetime tracking.

Through the Proof of Impact program, and after internalizing project and partner feedback, we iterated on the definition and description of the Celo stages to better match the current ecosystem reality. Since Cycle 4 (October 7th), we’ve used the following definitions.

Stages Logic #3 - the version used since Cycle 4

Stage Description Unique Wallets Gas usage per cycle (2 weeks) Karma verified
Stage 0 Proof of Concept 10 25,000,000 :white_check_mark:
Stage 1 MVP and small Mini Apps 100 500,000,000 :white_check_mark:
Stage 2 Standalone and larger Mini Apps 1,000 2,500,000,000 :white_check_mark:
Stage 3 Scaling projects 10,000 25,000,000,000 :white_check_mark:
Stage 4 Mature aligned project 100,000 500,000,000,000 :white_check_mark:

The Karma verification is measured by a project having a complete Karma profile that is part of the Celo Community. The User Quality score is measured through the Prosperity Pass API, which assigns weighted scores to addresses connected to Prosperity Pass accounts. The higher the Prosperity Pass level (aka higher lifetime value contributed to the Celo ecosystem), the more points allocated for the user quality score.

Moving forward, we recommend the stages defined in the Intents and Ecosystem Strategy to more closely resemble the amount used by Proof of Impact, as it better reflects the current state of the ecosystem. We also believe that now that the tools and methods are standardised that it would be better to run a Monthly Proof of Impact cycle, which better matches the 30d timeframe used by most third-party platforms, match payment cycles and align with the Karma data integration.

Proof of Ship

Hosted by the Celo DevRel team, a monthly program for builders to grow their onchain reputation and earn rewards, operated by the Celo DevRel team. We’re awaiting final data from the Celo DevRel team and will update this section later.

Celo Support Streams

Operated in collaboration with Snapshot, Support Streams are Celo Protocol Incentives that are distributed Monthly to Protocols on Celo through a stCELO vote in the CeloPG Snapshot space. ​To be eligible, projects have to submit a plan showing how they will distribute at least 80% of the CELO received to users as incentives.

By leveraging stCELO for Voting, Support Streams also functions as a driver for stCELO adoption and experimentation for future CELO token utility in case Validator rewards are reduced or removed.

At the start of the season, the amount of CELO in stCELO was just over 1M. Right now, it has grown to 2.35 M. This growth is also visible in the increase of stCELO participating in Support Stream votes. At the start in September, only 217k stCELO participated, which has grown to over 403k stCELO by December.

By combining the Support Streams (incentives) with Proof of Impact (impact-based rewards), we start to see a pattern between the amount of incentives allocated and the efficiency of projects to convert that into onchain usage.

Below is an overview of the top 10 earning projects from Support Streams and Impact Rewards, and the relationship between their earned rewards.

Project Total S1 Rewards SS Rewards IR Rewards IR / SS
Ubeswap 50,112 21,875 25,741 1.3
GoodDollar 47,757 0* 47,757 /
Prosperity Pass 36,119 11,451 24,668 2.2
Fonbnk 29,585 0* 29,585 /
AkibaMiles 28,749 13,029 15,720 1.2
Regenerative 16,587 13,070 3,517 0.3
Festify 14,064 54 14,010 259.4
Ecocerts 12,524 12,524 0** 0
GMonchain 10,413 0* 10,413 /
Esusu 10,037 2,149 7,888 2.9

* The project did not participate in Support streams, which often, in practice, means that the team uses IR rewards as incentives for growth. ** The project did not participate in Proof of Impact, so no onchain usage data is available.

While these datapoints are providing some insights, they are still not sufficient to truly measure meaningful progress and long-term potential. We are in conversation with the Celo Ecosystem team to create an “innovation score,” which is a more qualitative-based period review of project progress, comparable to the current Proof of Ship program, but optimised for Stage 1-4 projects.

Contributor Rewards

To reward the most active Celo users in Season 1, we’re tracking progress badges in Prosperity Pass (view Dune dashboard with more stats). The dApps usage grew from 1k at the start of the season to over 4k accounts.

In January 2026, we will allocate 100,000 CELO from the CeloPG Season 1 proposal + 24,000 CELO earned by Prosperity Pass via the Support Streams and Proof of Impact programs to Prosperity Pass accounts based on a combination of their Season 1-specific badges and Prosperity Pass level. At the moment of writing, over 1200 users claimed Season 1-specific badges. A minimum reward cut-off will be used, where only users who earn more than 20 CELO will receive rewards. The max reward for Season 1 rewards will be set at 2,000 CELO.

We also leverage Super Accounts, a Superchain-native version of Prosperity Pass with 127K users, to attract additional users to the Celo ecosystem. Through the earned OP budgets from the CeloPG programs, we funded incentive programs to verify Self and use the Celo network. This resulted in over 300 Self verifications and 1,250 Celo usage badges.

CeloPG Development Grants
We allocated $25,000 out of $50,000 to fund infrastructure and developments that were required to operate the Season 1 programs. We paid 6 months for Snapshot Pro and integrated Snapshot and stCELO into Prosperity Pass for the Support Streams program. We also developed a Prosperity Pass API to create the User Quality score and integrated this into the Proof of Impact campaign with Divvi and partnered with Karma on the Impact Attestation Upload function, which allows us to attest the monthly program data to the project’s Karma profiles.

CeloPG Brand and Website
In Season 1, we continue to grow our following to over 2,500 across X and Farcaster, with over 150,000 impressions since July. User engagement with the platform has also progressed well, with 4.7K unique visitors on CeloPG.eco in Season 1.

This season, we also increasingly added non-CeloPG programs, such as Cel’EU Cirkvit and Prezenti’s peach round and resources, to our website. In 2026, we will aim to refresh our website to better match the recently launched Celo.org brand and increase functionality through integrations with Karma that allow for more automated updates of our website.

Celo Governance and Treasury Support
Our team has proactively contributed to governance progress while expanding our suite of tools related to treasury accounting and budgeting.

We continued to update the Celo Community Treasury Dune Dashboard, developed from scratch with input from cLabs. The dashboard provides a transparent view of the Celo Community Treasury’s current holdings, historical spending, and unclaimed resources.

Together with our Treasury and Governance Sheet, this dashboard forms the backbone for a Celo treasury strategy. It positions Celo Governance to make well-informed budget recommendations for Season 1 and beyond. We also supported the Foundation by creating a full breakdown of 2024 and 2025 Treasury spending.

Celo Event Services
Our team partnered with Ethereum For The World and Celo Camp to sponsor Funding The Commons Buenos Aires. At the event, the CeloPG team got the chance to present their progress, and Celo Camp presented about their programs and ecosystem opportunities.

GG24 Domains and Programs
Through the strategic collaboration between Gitcoin and CeloPG, we’ve been at the forefront of shaping the future of Gitcoin 3.0. CeloPG played a prominent role in GG24, allocating $135,000 to GG24 programs, resulting in an estimate value of $437,500 flowing to Celo-alligned projects (either live on Celo or a core dependency of the ecosystem. We also saw over $500,000 USD in program resources flow on the Celo Blockchain.

Round Contribution Total Match Multiplier Celo-aligned Net Multiplier
Privacy Domain $2,500 $125,000 50.00 10% 500%
PG Tooling Development $17,500 $150,000 8.57 40% 343%
Solution Development Grants $55,000 $150,000 2.73 90% 245%
Local Funding $35,000 $155,000 4.43 70% 310%
Bioregional Reforestation $5,000 $95,000 19.00 70% 1330%
InterOp $20,000 $100,000 5.00 55% 275%
TOTAL $135,000 $775,000 5.74 55.83% 3.24

There are two Gitcoin Programs with CeloPG stewards as leads, which operated under the joint Ethereum For The World Brand, an initiative to gather co-allition funders to accelerate real-world developments in the Ethereum Ecosystem. This overlap makes these programs strategically relevant for our 2026 plans and deserves a summary in this report below:

Solution Development Grants
The Solutions Development Grants Program, part of the Targeted Development & Adoption (TDA) Domain, funded 19 Ethereum-based projects with up to $155K in milestone-based grants to accelerate real-world solutions aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). From 51 pre-applications, 22 full proposals were reviewed using human and AI-assisted evaluation. Notably, 90% of the allocated funding supported projects directly built on Celo or overlapping with Celo priorities, emphasising impact, scalability, and ecosystem legitimacy.

Localism Fund
The Localism Fund supports local networks and place-based groups to strengthen political, economic, cultural, and ecological localism using Ethereum as foundational infrastructure. It provides grants, guidance, and hands-on support, turning global tools into practical, locally rooted outcomes. Key partners include Regen Coordination, OpenCivics Network, Ma Earth, and the Ethereum Foundation, with technical support from Karma and TrustGraph, an onchain system that maps trust and validates expertise.

The Localism Fund Expert Network connects practitioners in grant-making, Ethereum tools, and localism to provide mentorship, advisory support, and tooling feedback. In Local Meetups LATAM Round 02, the Fund supported grassroots Ethereum-enabled networks across Latin America to host recurring meetups over a year, deepening engagement and sustaining post-Devconnect momentum. With $30,000 for meetups and $125,000 for local programs, grants were disbursed in quarterly tranches. By combining expert guidance, TrustGraph validation, and locally led initiatives, the Fund strengthens resilient, community-driven networks while advancing practical Ethereum-based solutions.

For The World Fund
In 2026, we aim to launch the For The World Fund, designed to accelerate top real-world, SDG-aligned projects with clear paths to both impact and financial returns. The Fund will combine non-dilutive grants and accelerator-style investments to support projects in the Growth Phase, helping them scale on Celo while providing potential upside to the Celo Treasury through equity, token, or revenue-share arrangements.

Looking Ahead: 2026 Strategy

As Celo doubles down on its role as the frontier chain for global impact, our 2026 approach centres on a clear thesis: Tokenized Acceleration—identifying, attracting, and supporting the best teams to build successful businesses on Celo and to tokenise a share of their efforts in a way that strengthens the entire ecosystem.

Guided by Season 1 learnings, CeloPG will focus on bringing high-quality builders to Celo, helping them launch impactful products, and ensuring their tokens, revenue, and onchain activity directly grow priority metrics such as chain revenue, dApp revenue, CELO demand, stablecoin supply, and treasury value.

We aim to submit a CeloPG 2026 Strategy document next week with our latest perspective on CeloPG’s programs and focus.

“Accelerate the highest-potential projects and their token economies on Celo to grow chain revenue, expand the treasury, and increase long-term demand for CELO.”

Our growth targets remain ambitious—entering the top 7 in chain and app revenue, top 2 in active users, and growing stablecoins to $1B while increasing CELO staking to 200M—all powered by a pipeline of high-performing, tokenised teams.

To deliver this, we will: (1) Position Celo as the best chain to launch meaningful tokens, with world-class tooling and liquidity venues; (2) Make Celo the most rewarding place for founders, supported by programs that accelerate teams from idea to scale; (3) Expand real utility through priority dApps and user incentives; (4) Strengthen ecosystem finance and CELO tokenomics so project growth and treasury growth

We remain confident in Celo’s trajectory and committed to making Celo the home for the next wave of tokenised, real-world-aligned businesses that regenerate the network and expand prosperity for all.

9 Likes

Community Questions on CeloPG Season 1 Progress Report

Thank you for the detailed Season 1 progress report. The ecosystem growth and tooling improvements are encouraging. To better understand the governance structure and ensure continued community trust, we’d appreciate clarification on the following:


Governance & Oversight

  1. Recusal Policies: The report mentions CeloPG stewards leading two Gitcoin programs (Solution Development Grants and Localism Fund). What documented policies exist for when stewards must recuse themselves from decisions affecting projects they’re personally affiliated with?

  2. Rule-Setting & Benefit: How does CeloPG ensure separation between those who define program eligibility criteria and those who benefit from those programs? Is there independent oversight?

  3. Voting Power in Support Streams: Given Support Streams uses stCELO voting, could you disclose the approximate voting power held by CeloPG leadership? What prevents outsized influence over which projects receive allocations?


Fund Flow Transparency

  1. Consolidated Disclosure: Could you provide a single view showing all funds flowing to CeloPG leadership and their affiliated projects across all programs (Support Streams, Gitcoin rounds, Retro Rounds, operator fees)?

  2. Operator Fee Accounting: The Gitcoin programs generate ~10.1% operator fees. Are these fees considered personal income to program leads, or do they flow to CeloPG operations? What is the total amount received?

  3. Operations Budget Breakdown: The report shows 106,000 cUSD + 125,000 CELO for “CeloPG Program Ops.” Could you break this down between direct compensation, operational costs, and any amounts flowing to leadership-affiliated projects?


Program-Specific Questions

  1. Support Streams Top Recipients: The report shows certain projects receiving significant portions of Support Stream allocations. How do we ensure fair, unbiased evaluation of projects when the people reviewing them also have leadership roles in CeloPG?

  2. Reward Design & Insider Performance: The 124,000 CELO contributor rewards will be distributed through Prosperity Pass. Given potential affiliations between CeloPG leadership and this platform, who independently verified the reward formula? More broadly, if CeloPG leadership or affiliated projects consistently rank highly in programs they administer, what safeguards exist?


Validator Operations

  1. Validator Reward Flows: The report mentions CeloPG validator nodes generating ~$12K/year. Could you clarify the total validator exposure (CeloPG-operated and any personally-operated by leadership), and where rewards ultimately flow?

Historical & Cumulative Context

  1. Cumulative Leadership Benefits: Across Season 0 and Season 1, what is the total value received by CeloPG leadership (directly and through affiliated entities) from all ecosystem programs they helped design or administer?

Forward-Looking Governance

  1. For The World Fund Safeguards: The 2026 strategy mentions equity/token/revenue-share arrangements. What will prevent investments flowing to leadership-affiliated projects?

  2. Independent Audit: Has CeloPG considered an independent third-party governance audit to verify fund flows and policy compliance?


Summary Request

To support community confidence, we request:

  • A consolidated disclosure of all funds received by CeloPG leadership and affiliated projects across S0 and S1

  • Published recusal policies and governance documentation

  • Clarity on voting power concentration in allocation decisions

  • Independent verification mechanisms for insider project eligibility

These questions are raised constructively. Transparent governance strengthens the entire ecosystem, and we appreciate the opportunity for open dialogue.

5 Likes

Could the CeloPG team explain what steps are being taken to address Sybil attacks (ERC8021 is not Sybil-resistant out of the box) for all programs? What is stopping participants from gaming the system by artificially inflating gas usage and MAU count? Could you also highlight the CeloPG policy on proprietary projects?

2 Likes

Thanks for the report @CPG_Stewards could you please elaborate on the validator revenue projection mentioned here

In a separate post co-authored by @LuukDAO, validator rewards are stated as approximately 109 cUSD/day per node.

Assuming 5 elected nodes over ~6 months, this would imply gross rewards on the order of:

109 cUSD × 5 nodes × ~180 days ≈ 98,000 cUSD

Given that, the ~$12k figure appears to represent ~12% of gross rewards.
Could you clarify:

  • What assumptions are being made here (e.g. election uptime, commission structure, operational costs)?
  • Whether the projection is net of costs, and if so, what the major cost drivers are?
  • Why economies of scale don’t materially reduce overhead at this validator size?

This clarification would be helpful for understanding validator economics and treasury expectations going forward.

2 Likes

Hi @AlexSedra,

Welcome to the Celo Forum! As we are not aware of your background and haven’t seen you around before - it would be helpful to receive more information about your background and relationship with Celo.

  1. There are basic policies and transparency guidelines internal to Gitcoin that stakeholders need to commit to in order to operate a program. The co-funders of the programs are the ultimately evaluators whether a program allocated funds in a fair way.

  2. CeloPG design programs with oversight from the Celo Foundation and advise from partners including Divvi. To minimize this tension, all programs are currently operated by onchain data-driven protocol vs human voting.

  3. Given stCELO is equally accessible to all stakeholders and can only be accrued by converting CELO there is no way to accrue an unfair advantage, besides buying and holding more CELO. Given this function, we don’t have any policies in place regarding individual voting decision and don’t believe they are needed.

  4. The program allocations have all been documented in the CeloPG S1 Programs Dashboard and can be tracked there.

  5. The Gitcoin program operating fee is seperate from CeloPG program operations and consists of software costs, lead/contributor payment and reviewer/expert payment. About 4% of the total fees where paid to individuals who are also contributing to CeloPG - purely for separate and additional work they provided to these program.

  6. We actually ended up spending significantly less on this item, as noted in the table. From the 80K cUSD and 123.75K CELO spend about 75% is compensation to contributors, and 25% is legal, accounting, software and travel costs.

  7. See answer 3 - this program is 100% driven by stCELO holder votes, which anyone has equal access to.

  8. The Celo Foundation team reviews any allocation we make, as they did in the previous season.

  9. We started operating nodes in Q3 after previously pushing back against (increasing) node rewards. Our node count grew step by step and briefly reached 5 in early December, after a small dip - we’re back to 5 - however we don’t know what the validator rewards will look like in Q1 due to the ongoing validator rewards conversation. In addition, we spend about $300 per node in infra costs per month + some development and tech costs to our technical contributor. Net, we earn about $1800 per node per month which is 100% assigned to the CeloPG budget. In the first months, we spent significantly more on development and infra (syncing and testing nodes). No CeloPG contributors operate a personal. The only node that contributors have indirect exposure to is the RegenerativeFi node which has been active for about 1 month and dedicates all it’s node revenue to incentives on Celo - to which anyone has equal access and no fees are charged.

  10. CeloPG has openly reported on it’s budget spending, unlike the majority of Treasury Funded teams. You can find the total resources spent in this report and the Season 1 report.

  11. The For The World Fund is not yet established, and would have clear operating guidelines investors / funders would review and agree to.

  12. No, however as mentioned above we’ve documented all our budgets and always reported pro-actively on it - unlike nearly all other entities, so we don’t see a direct reason to need to do this, especially considering we’ve operated for over 2 years with an average YES rate of over 97% signaling that the CELO stakeholders are happy with our current modus of operating and efficacy.

1 Like

Hi @yomfana,

We’ve incorporated multiple elements to reduce the gameability, however recognize that separating between “gamified usage” and “incentivized real usage” remains a challenge.

  1. Divvi has native features that aim to reduce Sybil.
  2. We split the rewards into multiple parameters to make it harder, and less rewarding, to game a single metric.
  3. We iterated on project stages which require multiple parameters to be above a certain treshhold.
  4. Each project needs to have a Karma profile to ensure it’s a legit project.
  5. We integrated the User Quality Score, which leverages Self verification and Prosperity Pass score to assign additional rewards to dApps that are able to prove a substantial share of their usage comes from proven Celo users.

Due to the fact that 100% of the rewards are allocated through the same public onchain reward formula operated by a third-party team (Divvi) we do not have a policy that restrains project that have direct or indirect relationship with CeloPG Contributors.

1 Like

Hi @ThirdEyeDelegate

In short
We didn’t have 5 validators for 6 months, we had 1-2 for most of the time since July. We started operating nodes in Q3 after previously pushing back against (increasing) node rewards.

More context
Our node count grew step by step and briefly reached 5 in early December. We’re back to 5 again now due to the recent exodus of validators which pushed the minimum votes down significantly.

We spend about $300 per node in infra costs per month + some development and tech costs to our technical contributor. Net, we earn about $1800 per node per month which is 100% assigned to the CeloPG budget. The economies of scale mainly influence the costs to run a Ethereum Node (used to keep our nodes in sync) and tech contributor costs, which remains steady at around $500-$750 USD.

In the first months, we spent significantly more on development and infra (syncing and testing nodes). Also, due to the ongoing validator rewards conversation we don’t know what Validator rewards will look like in January and are not including any assumptions about that yet.

1 Like

Could you please confirm the address of the CeloPG Safe wallet on the Optimism network (for distributing OP rewards) ? It is not stated in any of the proposals.

Hi @etherlens, welcome to the Celo forum and ecosystem! The address is the same as our primary S1 address: 0x85910bE70D7eBF149918ed96eF8BE175A0639c33 - this is a multi-chain safe.

Follow-Up Questions on CeloPG Response

Thank you for the detailed response. We appreciate the transparency and the time taken to address these questions. However, several answers raise additional questions that we believe warrant further clarification:


On Recusal & Oversight

Re: Answer 1 & 2: You mention “basic policies and transparency guidelines internal to Gitcoin” and “oversight from the Celo Foundation.” Could you:

  • Share these documented policies publicly so the community can understand what specific safeguards exist?

  • Clarify the nature of Celo Foundation oversight: is this formal approval of each allocation, or general advisory input?

  • Explain what happens when a program lead’s affiliated project applies for funding from a program they operate?


On Voting Power & “Equal Access”

Re: Answer 3 & 7: The response states stCELO is “equally accessible to all” and therefore no policies are needed. However:

  • Equal access to acquire stCELO doesn’t address concentration. Could you disclose what percentage of Support Stream voting power is held by CeloPG leadership and affiliated entities?

  • If leadership holds significant voting power in programs that allocate funds to their own projects, “equal access” doesn’t resolve the governance concern. It’s the actual distribution that matters.

  • The premise that “anyone can buy CELO” doesn’t address whether those designing and administering programs should be voting on allocations to their own projects.


On Fund Flow Transparency

Re: Answer 4: The dashboard shows program allocations, but our question was about a consolidated view across all channels. Specifically:

  • What is the total cumulative value received by CeloPG leadership and their affiliated projects (e.g. Kolektivo Labs, ReFi DAO, …) across Support Streams, Gitcoin matching, operator fees, retro rounds, and direct compensation (across both seasons)?

  • The dashboard shows individual program data, but the community would benefit from a single summary showing aggregate insider flows.


On Operator Fees

Re: Answer 5: You mention “about 4% of the total fees were paid to individuals who are also contributing to CeloPG.” To clarify:

  • What is the absolute dollar amount this 4% represents?

  • Are operator fees from programs like Localism Fund and ETH For The World disclosed in the CeloPG budget, or accounted separately?


On Validator Operations

Re: Answer 9: Thank you for the detailed breakdown. One clarification:

  • You mention “no CeloPG contributors operate a personal [validator]” but then reference the “RegenerativeFi node” which leadership has “indirect exposure to.” Could you clarify the ownership structure of RegenerativeFi and the nature of this “indirect exposure”?

  • If RegenerativeFi is controlled by CeloPG leadership, the distinction between “personal” and “indirect exposure” may be semantic rather than substantive.


On Independent Audit

Re: Answer 12: The response notes a 97% YES rate as evidence of stakeholder satisfaction. However:

  • Approval rates measure voter sentiment, not governance integrity. High approval can coexist with structural concerns that voters aren’t aware of.

  • The fact that CeloPG reports more transparently than other entities is commendable, but “better than others” isn’t the benchmark. The question is whether current practices meet good governance standards.

  • An independent audit isn’t about distrust; it’s about establishing credibility that benefits everyone, including CeloPG leadership.


On The Core Structural Question

The responses consistently point to mechanisms (stCELO voting, dashboards, Foundation review) without addressing the fundamental concern:

When the same individuals design program rules, administer programs, hold significant voting power, and receive substantial funds through affiliated projects, what structural separation exists?


Constructive Path Forward

We recognize CeloPG has contributed greatly to the ecosystem and operates more transparently than many. Our questions aren’t accusations; they’re requests for the kind of structural clarity that protects both the community and CeloPG leadership from future disputes.

Would CeloPG consider:

  1. Publishing a consolidated insider fund flow summary (total value to leadership + affiliated entities)?

  2. Disclosing actual voting power percentages in Support Streams?

  3. Documenting specific recusal procedures for when affiliated projects are evaluated?

  4. Welcoming an optional independent governance review (not as an indictment, but as a trust-building measure)?

We appreciate the continued dialogue.

2 Likes

It’s still not clear to us who “we” is in this context and your background and intentions. Please clarify that.

To you points:

  1. We believe our reports provide sufficient insight into the flow of funds.

  2. We don’t believe limiting policies are required here and didn’t track, nor intend to track, contributor voting behavior and stake.

  3. As mentioned, there is no human evaluation involved in the programs of CeloPG in Season 1, so no procedures exist.

  4. We’re open to participating in an independent governance review if ALL Celo Community Treasury funded teams participate in this and are threated equally.

If and when Celo Governance approves an independent and equal audit, we would be open to participate. Until then, please use our report and the available data as resource.

In the coming weeks, we’ll prioritize working with key stakeholders on defining what the focus for the coming years would be, and will let them, and those with skin in the game, through a vote, be the judges of our integrity and impact on Celo.

I’d like to address my concerns on the systematic avoidance of legitimate accountability questions by the CeloPG stewards (reffered to as “you” in some places).

First, the stewards repeated demands for a critic’s “background and intentions” are irrelevant and corrosive. No one needs to pass a background check to question the stewardship of public funds, especially in a permission-less ecosystem. This forum operates under clear rules, questions must be civil and on-topic, which these are. Attempting to shift scrutiny onto the questioner, rather than the substance of the questions, is an attempt to silence dissent. The implication that questioners should dox themselves before receiving answers about public fund flows is particularly concerning. This isn’t about who’s asking; it’s about whether the stewards can answer. We will not be distracted by this.

Accountability isn’t a group project. You are being questioned about the specific issues within your operations. If the stewards were genuinely confident in their operations, they would lead by example rather than hiding behind the perceived lack of transparency in other entities. You are effectively attempting to engineer scenario where no review ever happens by making it dependent on some imaginary universal consensus.

You cite a “97% YES rate” as absolution that everything is fine. This is a profound misunderstanding of governance. A vote on a funding proposal is not a forensic audit, nor is it an absolution from future scrutiny. Shareholders voted for Enron’s board. Users trusted FTX. Popularity is not integrity. The community votes based on the promise of impact and the information you choose to provide at the time of proposal. Our questions are about the integrity of the process behind that promise and post proposal performance. Dismissing them because you get votes is an arrogant dismissal of the community’s right to verify how their money is being spent.

This raises more questions than it answers. Is the @CeloFoundation willing to go on record and confirm that they have performed a review of and and every allocation? Or are you implying the Foundation should be jointly “on the hook” for any discrepancies? Outsourcing your accountability to the Foundation does not satisfy the community’s right to direct answers.

The fact that you present this as reasonable governance reveals either ignorance of basic fiduciary principles or cynical exploitation of them. By demanding a governance vote for the audit itself, you are:

  • Politicizing a technical process: You are transforming a straightforward requirement for financial and operational integrity into a political campaign, where social capital and narrative override factual review.
  • Perverting Governance: You are misusing the community’s techncial upgrades and funding mechanism as a shield against accountability. Governance votes are for allocating resources and proposing technical upgrades, not for deciding whether stewards of those resources must be transparent. This sets a ruinous precedent that risks tainting Celo governance permanently aside from creating a never ending circular dependency.
  • Ignoring Fiduciary Reality: In any functional system, those entrusted with funds (the board/stewards) are obligated to provide verification, not to require their principals (the community) to vote on whether they should be verified. Democratic governments do not require legislative approval before an auditor-general investigates executive spending; that is the entire point of independent oversight.

This is not a good-faith argument for fairness. It is the calculated strategy of an entity with something to hide, designed to exhaust public will and run out the clock. The community must reject this circular logic outright.

Who are these “key stakeholders” if not the community engaging here? The Celo Community Fund was established by the community, for the community in CGP-17; it is a collective resource generated by the network’s participants, inflation of the CELO token and return of colateral by Mento. The suggestion that only those with sufficient “skin in the game” should judge your integrity implies only wealthy stakers matter. This plutocratic framing is fundamentally at odds with community governance. Every participant in this ecosystem has standing to question how public funds are managed.

This is an attempt at manufactured consent. Integrity is not something you can vote into existence. Talking only to those likely to agree with you is a public relations exercise, not governance.

You are treating this as if you are doing us a favor by providing any information at all. Let us be clear: The community does not ask for “resources” from you; the community requires accountability. You are managing PUBLIC FUNDS established by the community itself. The fact that you frame mandatory transparency as a “resource” we should be grateful for reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of your role. You are fiduciaries of the Community Fund, not its owners.

Bottom line: You have constructed a fortress of deflections; questioning critics, conditional audits, and appeals to popularity all to avoid a simple truth: stewards of public funds do not get to debate whether transparency is owed. They must provide it. Your entire response is a fiduciary betrayal wrapped in procedural excuses. We, the community, will not fall for it.

10 Likes

@CPG_Stewards Could you please share your internal ledger detailing fund movements for both S0 and S1, including counterparty descriptions? I assume this information is available and that there will be no issue with sharing it publicly, as you previously provided it for H1 and H2.

Could you also confirm if the CeloPG.eco website is open source or proprietary? If open source, could you provide a link to it? Thanks.

4 Likes

Data Analysis: Fund Distribution Patterns in CeloPG Programs

We’ve conducted an independent analysis of publicly available CeloPG program data. The patterns revealed warrant community attention and, we believe, substantiate the concerns raised in this thread.


Impact Rewards Program Analysis

Across 8 funding cycles in the Impact Rewards Program, three projects suspected of affiliation with program operators captured 22.1% of total funding (43,905 CELO out of 198,374 CELO distributed so far).

The breakdown:

  • Prosperity Pass: 24,668 CELO (7 of 8 cycles funded)

  • AkibaMiles: 15,720 CELO (8 of 8 cycles funded)

  • RegenerativeFi: 3,517 CELO (7 of 8 cycles funded)

The “Operator Share by Cycle” chart shows this isn’t an anomaly—it’s a consistent pattern across every single cycle.


Support Streams Program Analysis

The concentration is even more pronounced in Support Streams. Across 4 cycles, three suspected operator-linked projects captured 43.2% of all funds distributed (37,550 CELO out of 86,973 CELO so far).

  • RegenerativeFi: 13,070 CELO

  • AkibaMiles: 13,029 CELO

  • Prosperity Pass: 11,451 CELO

When three projects—out of an entire ecosystem—consistently capture nearly half of available funding, and those projects are suspected of links to program operators, this is not a statistical coincidence.


Cycle-by-Cycle Trend

The cycle-by-cycle analysis is particularly revealing:

Cycle Operator-Linked Share
Cycle 1 51.2%
Cycle 2 48.3%
Cycle 3 38.3%
Cycle 4 38.6%

In the first first cycle, suspected operator projects captured more than half of all distributed funds (likely because they designed the rules and gave community members less time to prepare). Even in later cycles, they maintain more than a third.

For comparison, the top independent projects received:

  • Ubeswap: 21,875 CELO

  • Ecocerts: 12,524 CELO

  • Esusu: 3,004 CELO

Three suspected insider projects (37,550 CELO) outperformed all other ecosystem projects combined in Support Streams.


The “Equal Access” Defense Doesn’t Hold

CeloPG’s response claimed that because stCELO is “equally accessible to all,” no governance concerns exist. This data tells a different story.

Equal access to a mechanism is irrelevant when:

  1. The same parties design the program parameters

  2. The same parties hold significant voting power

  3. The same parties’ projects consistently capture 40-50% of funds

  4. There are no documented recusal policies

The question isn’t whether anyone can buy stCELO. The question is: why do three operator-linked projects consistently outperform the entire rest of the ecosystem combined?


Key Finding

Without a recusal policy, three projects potentially connected to the grants operator have consistently received more than a third of available funding across all cycles, totaling over 81,000 CELO combined across both programs (and over 100,000 CELO when considering S1).

This represents significant community resources flowing to suspected insider projects—while those same insiders argue that no governance reforms are needed.


Questions These Patterns Raise

  1. Can CeloPG confirm or deny operational affiliations with Prosperity Pass, AkibaMiles, and Regenerative?

  2. If affiliations exist, how is it acceptable that affiliated projects capture 43% of program funds?

  3. Why should the community accept “Foundation oversight” as sufficient when these patterns persist cycle after cycle?


Conclusion

We echo the previous poster’s sentiment: stewards of public funds do not get to debate whether transparency is owed.

The data speaks clearly. The patterns are consistent. The deflections are documented. What remains is for the community to decide whether this is acceptable stewardship of collective resources—or whether structural reform is required.

We call again for:

  • Public confirmation or denial of affiliations with these three projects and a full list of all affiliated entities

  • A consolidated accounting of all funds flowing to leadership and affiliated entities

  • Mandatory recusal policies for future programs

  • Independent governance review—not contingent on other teams, not subject to a vote, but as a basic expectation of fiduciary responsibility

The community deserves answers, not procedural obstacles.

4 Likes

Hi Alex,

Happy to answer those Qs!

To provide an easier overview of the program data and season budgets, we’ve merged the data from Season 0 and Season 1 - including an overview of Contributor Affiliation into a single CeloPG 2025 Overview you can view here.

(1) Program operators’ affiliation and payment from program income
In all three of the projects mentioned, 0% of the program income was used to pay a fee/salary to any of the CeloPG contributors of 2025. The entire budget was used as user incentives, pay infrastructure bills, and rewards for product developers for their work.

Prosperity Pass is a solution that is part of the CeloPG program. The CELO earned by it is dedicated to the season contributor rewards program, which expands the budget from 100K CELO in rewards to end users to about 135k CELO in rewards to end users.

AkibaMiles, led by Kenyan builder in residence Ibrahim with direct support from Niko and advice from Luuk, uses most of the rewards as user incentives, with a minority of rewards allocated to infrastructure and freelance developers. AkibaMiles has committed to the 1% pledge.

RegenerativeFi, built in collaboration with the team behind Symmetric with direct support from Luuk and Monty, uses all of the incentives to allocate onchain user incentives. Regenerative also aims to allocate 10% of any potential token supply to the CCF.

(2) How is it acceptable that affiliated projects earn program rewards?

In early-stage ecosystems, it’s often the case that individuals hold multiple roles, as is clear from the CeloPG 2025 Overview and the overlap between Governance (guardians/reviewers), Community (Guild, grants, regional DAOs), and Core team (Foundation, cLabs, etc.) roles.

Because of this reality, CeloPG worked with third-party teams (Snapshot, Aragon, Karma, and Talent) to create data-driven reward programs that are completely based on the results of onchain measurable, and equally accessible outcomes.

  • Support Streams: Incentives are allocated completely based on stCELO votes, which all CELO holders have an equal opportunity to participate in and promote the holding and usage of stCELO.
  • Proof of Impact: Rewards are allocated based on parameters that are measured by Divvi and executed by them.
  • Proof of Ship: Celo DevRel leverages Talent to measure and allocate rewards.

Due to the design being completely automated and onchain, no favorable conditions were created for any of the projects with (in) direct involvement from program operators.

As these programs grow - which they are, as shown by the cycle of growth in terms of number of participants, program impact, and reward decentralization - they will be able to include an increasing amount of Celo stakeholder input and impact-data, resulting in a rewarding mechanism that truly operates in line with all ecosystem priorities and stakeholders’ preferences.

(3) Why should the community accept “Foundation oversight” as sufficient?
The foundation oversight is specifically related to the Prosperity Pass reward distributions, as that’s the only program that is not allocating based on onchain factors (Divvi ranking / stCELO vote).

We believe that the CELO voters provide oversight and approval through the Celo Governance votes.

The author speaks about “patterns” that repeat. A detailed breakdown of program operations and rewards outcomes was published at the end of Season 0 and included in the context of the Season 1 proposal, which was accepted with a 95.7% yes votes. Because of this clear support and the fact that no specific questions about the “patterns” were asked, we believe that the vast majority of stakeholders do not perceive these “patterns” as negative, but as a symptom of an early-stage growing ecosystem.

Conversations like this, and future votes, will give us pointers on whether this perspective is still correct or not.

Program reflection
After operating the same programs for 1 full-year, we believe the progression of Proof of Impact and Proof of Ship is positive for the Celo ecosystem, as it provides result-based builder incentives and creates a strong ecosystem dataset to optimize resource allocation around.

We also believe that the insights from Support Streams, granting Celo stakeholders direct influence on which protocols should earn growth incentives vs having a council review this, is a valuable input for Launching the CELO Tokenomics Initiative: Designing the Next Era Together conversation.

Future policies and separation
We do recognize that in order for these programs to grow, it will be helpful to establish clear governance guidelines and operating policies - even when the actual incentives are allocated through verifiable, third-party measurements.

Moving forward, we propose to establish standard CCF governance, accounting, and CoI guidelines and include an additional section into Celo Governance proposal when requesting funds from the CCF that specifies that teams opt in to these guidelines. We are happy to co-author or review such policies and opt in for any future proposal.

Final thoughts
All of the current CeloPG contributors have dedicated years of their lives to support the Ethereum, Celo, and wider onchain PG space. We love Celo and deeply care about its health and development. In the end, we are happy to have this conversation and believe it contributes to better operations and ecosystem growth.

We’ll be signing off for the Christmas holiday, but we look forward to proceeding with this conversation in January and making concrete guidelines and agreements for ecosystem operations in line with Celo’s priorities.

Towards prosperity for all.

3 Likes

Thank you for the response and the consolidated overview document. We appreciate the effort to provide context. However, several core questions remain unanswered, and we share the concerns raised by others such as @yomfana in this thread regarding what appears to be strategic deflection rather than direct engagement with the substance of the questions being asked.

On the Nature of This Discussion

We need to address the deflection tactics directly:

The questions being raised are about public fund flows and governance structures. They are straightforward factual questions that don’t require a governance vote, conditional participation from other programs, or—most egregiously—background checks on those asking them. The repeated requests for questioners’ “background and intentions” are not only irrelevant but actively corrosive to accountability. No one needs to pass a loyalty test or dox themselves to question the stewardship of public funds in a permissionless ecosystem. This is a transparent attempt to shift scrutiny from the substance of the questions to the identity of the questioners—a classic deflection tactic.

The community is asking for factual information now—information that should have been proactively disclosed but wasn’t part of those earlier proposal discussions. This is not an attack; this is basic governance. Yet instead of answers, we’ve received conditional offers of “independent reviews” contingent on other teams participating, appeals to Foundation oversight, and demands for governance votes on whether accountability should even exist.

This is exhausting. The community shouldn’t need to conduct forensic analysis to uncover basic facts about fund flows and project affiliations. We’ve identified at least 11 potentially affiliated entities through our own research—research that program operators should have disclosed proactively. The burden of transparency belongs to those managing public funds, not to those asking questions about them.

In any functional accountability framework, stewards of public resources provide verification to the community they serve—not negotiate the terms under which such verification might conditionally occur. These are straightforward factual questions. They deserve straightforward factual answers.

Questions Still Pending

stCELO Voting Power: You state Support Streams allocations are “completely based on stCELO votes” and that “all CELO holders have equal opportunity to participate.” We appreciate this clarification of the mechanism. However, our question was about the actual distribution: what percentage of stCELO voting power is held by CeloPG leadership and affiliated entities?

Complete Affiliation Disclosure: Thank you for addressing Prosperity Pass, AkibaMiles, and RegenerativeFi. The original questions also referenced other entities appearing in fund flow analyses—including Kolektivo, Superchain Eco, ReFi DAO, Celo Europe, ETH for the World, Localism Fund, and Regen Coordination. Could leadership please confirm or deny affiliations with these additional projects as well? This would help us understand the complete picture.

Gitcoin Rounds Concern: We have early indications that in several Gitcoin rounds, affiliated projects received funding through what appears to be multiple channels. In at least one case, it seems that program leads may have received funding through three distinct streams: CeloPG operations, Gitcoin round operator fees, and direct grants to affiliated projects within the same round! If accurate, this pattern would mean that community fees were channeled back to program operators through multiple simultaneous paths. Could you please provide clarification on which Gitcoin rounds were operated by CeloPG or affiliated entities, which projects received grants in those rounds, and what operator fees were received? This would help us understand whether appropriate separation existed between round operations and participation.

Consolidated Fund Flow: We requested a single consolidated view showing total cumulative value received by CeloPG leadership and all affiliated entities across all programs and seasons—including direct compensation, operator fees, project allocations, validator rewards, and Gitcoin program fees and matching funds combined. The overview document provides valuable program-level data, but we’d appreciate help assembling this consolidated summary.

Points of Clarification

“0% used to pay fee/salary”: Our question was about the total value flowing to entities controlled or co-controlled by program operators, regardless of how those entities subsequently allocate funds internally. If leadership is involved with projects that capture significant program resources, understanding the overall flow would help contextualize governance considerations.

“No favorable conditions were created”: The data shows three operator-linked projects consistently capturing 40-50% of Support Streams funding across multiple cycles. You attribute this to “onchain measurable outcomes.” We’d appreciate understanding more about how the parameters defining those outcomes were established and whether there were any safeguards in place to ensure that parameter-setting roles and fund-receiving roles were appropriately separated. We unfortunately observe similar patterns in the Prosperity Pass rewards program where more onchain points are specifically given for CeloPG leads.

On Future Policies

The commitment to “establish standard CCF governance, accounting, and CoI guidelines” is very welcome. We hope these guidelines might also include retrospective disclosure of fund flows from H1, H2, Season 0, and Season 1, which would help establish baseline transparency for the future framework.


Summary

To be direct: the community has asked for specific numbers and complete disclosure. The response provided context and explanation, but not the data requested. Once again, we ask for:

  1. What is the actual stCELO voting power held by CeloPG leadership and affiliated wallets?

  2. What is the complete list of affiliated projects beyond the three addressed and eleven suggested?

  3. What is the total cumulative value received by leadership and all affiliated entities across H1, H2 and both seasons?

  4. Clarification on Gitcoin round operations, affiliated project participation, and associated fees

These are straightforward factual questions. The community shouldn’t need to conduct forensic analysis to uncover basic facts about fund flows and project affiliations. Until they are answered with specific figures, the conversation cannot move forward productively.

We appreciate your dedication to the ecosystem and wish you restful holidays. We look forward to concrete answers.

4 Likes

Hi @AlexSedra - you mentioned that the conversation can’t move forward without xyz input, but haven’t even introduced yourself, your background, affiliation, and the specific outcome you hope to achieve.

You continue to speak in “we” - please clearly state who the we is.

Until you give that context, I will personally refrain from helping collect data and shape answers to your questions.

Happy holidays!

1 Like

Hi everyone — Monty here.

I’m one of the CeloPG core stewards (since inception). I haven’t participated in this thread so far as I was heavily oversubscribed toward the end of last year and then took a full break over the holidays to properly recharge.

I’m supportive of clearer, shared guidelines around disclosure, conflict of interest, and reporting. I think it should be applied evenly across all initiatives but I also recognise that working in DAO contexts often comes with higher expectations of transparency and documentation than other roles. So I think it’s important that I respond. Not just to clarify facts, but to share how I see this moment for Celo, ReFi, and the work many of us are trying to do.

My org affiliations and roles

I think it’s pretty normal in Web3 and early-stage ecosystems for individuals to contribute across multiple projects in different capacities. CeloPG was never scoped as a full-time role for me; I’ve consistently operated as an ecosystem operator designing programs, incubating initiatives, and collaborating across teams. I accept the core principle raised in this thread that when people hold multiple roles, we need to be especially mindful about conflicts of interest and act with integrity, but I also think that in a small and emerging ecosystem it’s impossible (and unrealistic / undesirable) to eliminate all overlap.

Below is a disclosure of my core affiliations and role in each.

Celo Public Goods (CeloPG)

Role / Affinity: Core steward (since inception)

Co-designed and stewarded multiple ecosystem programs focused on measurable onchain outcomes, builder support, and ecosystem growth. Supported integration and coordination with ecosystem tooling partners (e.g. impact tracking, reputation, and program infrastructure). And much much more, see all CeloPG retrospectives from past seasons (H1 2024, H2 2024, Season 0 etc..).

Disclosure:

I have contributed as a core steward focused on ecosystem program design, coordination, and strategic development, alongside other ecosystem work.

ReFi DAO Global

Role / Affinity: Co-founder

Growing a global regenerative finance community spanning local nodes, builders, funders, and educators. Designed and coordinated ecosystem programs, events, and funding initiatives in the ReFi space. Produced public-facing educational content, research, and convenings advancing regenerative finance narratives. Acted as an incubation and coordination layer for multiple downstream ReFi initiatives and collaborations.

Disclosure:

ReFi DAO is one of my longest-standing commitments and where a significant portion of my time and energy has gone over the last several years. ReFi DAO Global has received no direct grants or payments from CeloPG.

Localism Fund

Role / Affinity: Co-founder

Launched Localism Fund in Q3 2025 as a place-based funding initiative. Designed and operated: Round 01 – Local Grant Programs: $125k allocated to 12 locally led grant programs across multiple regions, with 100% public, criteria-based evaluation coverage. Round 02 – Local Meetups LATAM (with Ethereum Everywhere): $30k supporting 10 grassroots meetup programs over 12 months. Established the Localism Fund Expert Network: 83 applicants → 36 peer-validated experts via TrustGraph → 14 active contributors. Produced open documentation, evaluation reports, and synthesis insights to support learning, replication, and accountability. :backhand_index_pointing_right: Full details: Localism Fund 2025 – Initial Progress & Reflections Report

Disclosure:

Localism Fund received $35,000 from the CeloPG Season 1 Celo x Gitcoin budget bracket. This contribution helped catalyse a total of $275k+ in funding (all on-ramped and allocated on Celo), including co-funding from Gitcoin, Ethereum Foundation, Ma Earth, and $100k+ in local community co-funding. → This represents approximately 7.8× leverage on Celo’s capital contribution.

I have personally received 4,000 cUSD from the operational fee pool for launching Localism Fund and leading operations across two funding rounds which I believe to be materially below both the time invested and typical market rates for comparable program design and operations work.

Localism Fund had a specific evaluator conflict-of-interest policy and expectations, embedded in the Expert Network onboarding and review process (see Expert Onboarding Guide).

Regenerative .fi

Role / Affinity: Co-founder

Co-designing the strategic vision and architecture for Regenerative.fi as a combined ReFi Insights platform and market infrastructure, built on Celo. Authored and contributed to ongoing ReFi insights, blogs, and research publications synthesising trends across regenerative assets, Web3 public goods, localism, and capital flows e.g. State of ReFi 2024 and 2025 industry reports. Advanced thinking and experimentation around regenerative assets, liquidity, and capital coordination. Supporting early partnerships and integrations across the ReFi and Ethereum ecosystem.

Disclosure:

Regenerative.fi is an early-stage initiative I joined Luuk in co-founding. It is deployed on and explicitly aligned with Celo, focused on addressing structural gaps in Regenerative Finance (ReFi) research, market infrastructure, and capital coordination, with the goal of increasing liquidity, investment, and real economic traction for ReFi assets and protocols on Celo.

Ethereum for the World

Role / Affinity: Researcher

Leading applied research at the intersection of ReFi, Web3, and mainstream nature finance. Engaging with non-crypto stakeholders (foundations, nature-finance actors, institutions) to translate ReFi concepts into accessible frameworks. Developing research outputs intended to inform pilots, partnerships, and capital flows beyond the crypto-native ecosystem.

Disclosure: I am currently leading an externally funded research workstream titled “Bridging Worlds: Mainstreaming ReFi Web3 for Nature Finance.”

Additional Affiliations (Concise Disclosure)

The following are secondary or advisory / council roles, included here for completeness:

Prosperity Pass — Advisor (primarily in relation to CeloPG program design and ecosystem incentives)

Karma — Advisor (impact reporting, attestations, and program infrastructure)

TrustGraph — Implementation lead for Localism Fund Expert Network

Regen Coordination — Founding steward and council member (cross-network coordination layer)

Regen Commons — Elected as a council member (new role starting this year)

Income transparency

I file UK self-assessment and track income closely for reporting purposes so I can be concrete here. My income has come primarily from CeloPG and ReFi DAO, with smaller amounts from other work streams (e.g. Localism Fund, TrustGraph).

Tracking spreadsheet (income by source and year): Monty Consolidated Income

Summary:

  • Tax year 2023/24: net income £31,045 (post-tax £27,831)

  • Tax year 2024/25: net income £57,043 (post-tax £46,794)

For context, senior grants/program management roles in the UK typically sit around £50k–£90k, and Web3-native roles are often higher, particularly in US-remote contexts. While my time is split across multiple initiatives, I’m not drawing multiple full-time salaries.

It’s also worth noting that these headline figures reflect taxable income at the time of receipt, not realised personal gain. A significant portion of my compensation has been paid in CELO, which I have held rather than sold, and which has declined very significantly in value over this period.

A broader reflection: where I’m trying to take this work

I want to step back from the specifics and share the lens I’m operating from.

I know that ReFi cannot remain a small, grant-dependent crypto niche. If it’s going to matter, it has to become materially relevant to real communities and economies. That means surviving the current funding contraction and positioning aligned platforms, networks, and tokens to grow, attract mainstream partners, and generate durable economic value.

Achieving this requires demonstrating credible Web3-powered models, while also actively bridging philanthropic, catalytic, institutional, and public sources of capital that largely sit outside the crypto ecosystem today. A growing number of mainstream actors recognise that existing finance models are falling short, but Web3 remains difficult for them to engage with. Making the ecosystem legible beyond our bubble and creating partnerships is a core aim of my work.

A central through-line for me in this is Localism: the development and support of functional, place-based, Web3-enabled micro-economies where payments, savings, coordination, and reinvestment happen locally, retaining value in communities rather than extracting it via traditional intermediaries while also driving real blockchain adoption and measurable impact. ​​This is also an area where Celo has a genuine strategic advantage through its ecosystem of regional stablecoins, mobile-first tooling like MiniPay, and demonstrated adoption across emerging markets — making it one of the few networks already positioned to support this kind of real-world, place-based economic activity at scale.

Closing

Celo is genuinely my cultural home in Web3. I share the view that we’re all riding the same bus and should be oriented toward making it succeed together. I’m keen to get back to the work of designing strong programs and delivering measurable outcomes in 2026.

If there are specific governance improvements (e.g., clearer network-wide CoI guidelines, standardised disclosure templates, etc..) that the community wants to adopt going forward, I’m supportive of working on that constructively, provided it’s applied consistently and without freezing ecosystem velocity.

6 Likes

@sophia @NikoG @Sov @LuukDAO @MontyMerlin

I am tagging all signers as you are all jointly accountable for the Safe multisig and it is your fiduciary responsibility (ethically) to ensure transparency and act in the best interest of the community or stakeholders involved.

As the stewards for S0 and S1, Can you confirm or deny whether you maintained and published spreadsheets/ledgers of your expenditure during those seasons?

If these ledgers exist, provide a direct link or instructions on how to access them. If they do not exist, please state so.

This is a straightforward request for accountability. I expect a clear, public response: yes or no. Silence or evasion will be noted.

2 Likes