# Change governance parameters

**URL:** <https://forum.celo.org/t/change-governance-parameters/9451>\
**Category:** Governance\
**Tags:** technical\
**Created:** [November 12, 2024, 5:17pm UTC](https://forum.celo.org/t/change-governance-parameters/9451 "2024-11-12T17:17:56Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 17

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![demo](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.celo.org/demo/32/10067_2.png) [@demo](https://forum.celo.org/u/demo)\
**Post date:** [January 2, 2025, 1:55pm UTC](https://forum.celo.org/t/change-governance-parameters/9451/17 "2025-01-02T13:55:13Z")

</div>

> [@demo](#):
>
> I will come to this later .  
> I will first try to propose to vote a number which is not a constitutional parameter.

Some proposals are asking the community members to agree to arbitrary numbers without providing any kind of proof that these numbers are mathematically optimal.

Ok, here’s my first attempt to address the obvious problem Celo is facing today, the arbitrary numbers problem. I made a comment below:

> [@The Great Celo Halvening - Proposed Tokenomics in the Era of Celo L2](https://forum.celo.org/t/the-great-celo-halvening-proposed-tokenomics-in-the-era-of-celo-l2/9701/12):
>
> Could you please explain to us why reducing the inflation rate from the current 2% to around 1% is the optimal solution? I mean , how did you decided that the 1% number is the optimal one? Why not reducing from 2% to 0.7% ? If your selected 1% number is pure chance, your plan is not good. You change the tokenomics of Celo based on your own interests and/or feelings, rather than based on a mathematical proof, and this is bad. It is not only you around, so if you cannot mathematicaly prove that…

**There are three roads we can follow, in order to solve such a problem:**  
1st road) Demand a mathematical proof  
2nd road) If a mathematical proof is not provided, this number should be voted by all voters  
3rd road, the old road) Trust the proposal owner that his intuition regarding the number is correct.

The 3rd road is the worst one, because it may not only be an intuition, but also a selfish interest that incentivizes some proposal owners to promote specific unproved numbers.

So Celo community have better to follow the 1st road, and if not applicable, the 2nd one.

 ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/uploads/celo/original/2X/2/2cc7d0ca01e3329be913f91c464265bd8c9fee48.png)

**LET THE CELO DAO DECIDE “HOW MUCH”**

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.celo.org/t/change-governance-parameters/9451)._