cGHS name update

Governance Governance Proposals
,
1

Dear all,

In a past proposal, we successfully deployed and launched the cGHS token. However, post-deployment, we discovered a typo in the token’s name. Typically, once a token is deployed, its name is immutable, even through governance. However, because all our stable tokens use a proxy, we can use a temporary implementation that allows us to update the token name.

We would like to create a proposal that will update the name using a temporary implementation contract.

When passed, this proposal will execute three transactions:

  1. Temporary Upgrade:
    Update the cGHS token’s proxy implementation to a temporary version that includes a new setName function.

  2. Correct Name Update:
    Call the new setName function to update the token’s name to “Celo Ghanaian Cedi.”

  3. Reversion to Original Implementation:
    Revert the proxy implementation back to the original StableTokenV2 version used by all Mento Stables.

These steps have been validated by doing the following:

  • Fork Test:
    Conducted on forked versions of Alfajores and Celo Mainnet, the test confirms that the implementation upgrade allows the name change and that all storage, such as balances and token data, is preserved after reverting back. These can be seen here.

  • Simulation Test:
    A simulation of the proposal passing on forked networks verifies that, after the process, the token’s implementation and name are correctly set. The simulation test can be reviewed here

This approach corrects the naming error while ensuring that the token’s state and standard functionality remain intact.

2

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

  • Post a proposal in the Celo Forum and leave it for discussion at least for seven (7) days.
  • Present Proposal in a Governance Call and address the feedback received: Proposal was presented during Celo Governance Call #64 | March 20th, 2025

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

:bangbang: Remember Current Celo Governance Overview & Procedures

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

Remember next steps

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

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

3

Thanks @bayological and team for your proposal. From my side, the proposal meets all necessary conditions:

  • It was posted on the Celo Forum and open for community discussion for at least seven (7) days.
  • It was presented at Celo Governance Call #64 on March 20th, 2025, and all feedback provided has been addressed.

With this, I consider the proposal ready to enter the voting stage whenever the proposer feels ready or finds it suitable to advance.