Delegate Thread: Grassroots Economics

Links

Our Values

  • Ubuntu
  • Economy in service of life
  • Care for people & environment
  • Non-dominance
  • Resilience
  • Value creation beyond extraction

Governance decision making framework

See GitHub - grassrootseconomics/celo-governance: Grassroots Economics Delegate for a detailed framework based on our values and decisions informed by them.

About

Grassroots Economics is a non-profit foundation that seeks to support communities to take charge of their own livelihoods and economic future. We focus on community development through commons and are dedicated to helping communities realize and share their abundance through Economic Commons with Instruments like Community Asset Vouchers and Commitment Pooling that can act as a medium of exchange and commons. While core beneficiaries of our programs include businesses and people living in informal settlements as well as rural areas, the documentation and tools have been broadly applied worldwide.

It is tremendously important to us that people take, use, build on and share what we’ve found to be useful. Join us in demonstrating, disseminating, designing & curating the best practices to empower communities to create and manage their own financial instruments. All our software, websites, materials are CopyLeft under AGPL 3.0 for software and Creative Commons Share-Alike With Attribution. Please copy, modify and use our systems and share them with the same license.

3 Likes

Why Grassroots Economics Is Voting NO on All Three Options

After careful consideration, Grassroots Economics will be voting NO on all three proposed options. Each proposal, reducing the validator set, cutting validator rewards, or reducing rewards to zero, would materially harm our technical and field operations. By extension, they would undermine the communities we serve and the real-world usage on which Celo’s long-term value depends.

Validator rewards are not surplus income for us. They directly fund:

  • Core technical infrastructure and operations
  • Local liquidity seeding
  • On-the-ground deployments in vulnerable and underbanked regions

These activities are not speculative. They directly drive transaction volume, TVL, and stablecoin usage in environments where traditional finance does not reach.

Reducing the validator set or rewards by half produces the same outcome more slowly. It erodes the economic foundation that enables mission-driven validators to operate sustainably. In practice, all three options shift value away from decentralized infrastructure and potentially toward discretionary spending elsewhere, without addressing broader budget issues.


Governance and Process Concerns

We also have serious concerns with how these options have been framed and presented:

  • Insufficient data: There is not enough publicly available analysis to justify a reduction to 55 validators. That number, or any simple halving of the set, appears arbitrary rather than evidence-based. We have shared our own D’Hondt simulations, validator rewards dashboard, and Celo collateral forecasts, yet none of the proposals meaningfully engage with this data.
  • The “zero rewards” option is a high-risk nuclear measure: It risks alienating an entire class of technical contributors, while likely triggering mass validator deregistrations and harming stakers. The risks and second-order effects of this option have not been rigorously examined, making it inappropriate to present as a viable choice.
  • Broken transition commitments: Sudden validator-targeted cuts undermine trust in the long-term commitments made during the transition period and weaken confidence in governance continuity.
  • Governance process concerns: We also note concerns raised by other delegates regarding potential governance rule flouting, which further reduces confidence in the legitimacy and readiness of these proposals.

The Right Way Forward

We support responsible cost review and long-term sustainability. However, we cannot support changes that alienate an entire technical constituency while simultaneously compromising real-world impact.

A more constructive and credible path forward would be:

  • Establish clear and shared visibility into the state of the Celo treasury, and apply cost-reduction efforts universally rather than isolating validators.
  • Conduct a genuinely data-driven assessment of validator economics and impact, and only then determine what a fair and sustainable adjustment to rewards might be.

For these reasons, Grassroots Economics cannot support any of the three options as currently proposed.

5 Likes

Grassroots Economics Delegate Update:

Unstaking, Community Support, and Request for Transition Help

Hello,

Grassroots Economics Foundation is sharing an important update with everyone who has delegated to us, supported our validators, or followed our work on Celo since 2023.

We also want to acknowledge and thank the Celo team for the response shared on this [forum].

We appreciate the recognition of our years of work as a validator and as builders through Grassroots Economics. We also appreciate that the ecosystem is exploring ways for previous validators to continue contributing, including the active proposal to compensate Challengers, and possible future roles such as Voter Reward Commission work. Any support in this direction would be helpful. At this stage, truly, any practical help we can receive to keep communities operating and transitioning safely matters.

We want to thank the Celo team, founders, validators, delegates, builders, and community members who helped make Celo a home for this work while they could.

That makes this update difficult.

We have now unstaked the CELO that was held on our validators.

This was not an easy decision. Grassroots Economics came to Celo not only to use infrastructure, but to help secure it, participate in governance, and build real-world systems of decentralized exchange with communities on the ground.

However, since the transition away from the validator role we originally participated in, our validator infrastructure no longer serves the purpose it once did for us. At the same time, gas costs have risen dramatically and appear to be continuing in that direction. This has created immediate operational pressure for the communities, savings groups, cooperatives, field teams, and local exchange systems that depend on our tools.

Because of this, we will be using the unstaked CELO to support our communities and operations, including paying for gas and maintaining continuity for the people already using these systems.

We want to be transparent with delegators: now that this CELO is no longer staked, Grassroots Economics will no longer have meaningful voting power as a Celo delegate. In practical terms, this means we are stepping back from our role as a governance participant and will now treat Celo primarily as infrastructure we pay to use, similar to other server or hosting services.

That is a painful shift for us.

We joined because we believed Celo could be a home for grassroots economic coordination, public goods, and decentralized infrastructure connected to real communities. In many ways, for a time, it was. We are grateful for that.

But the lessons of this transition are also clear. Grassroots communities cannot depend on infrastructure where the basic cost of participation can rise dramatically without their meaningful control, protection, or ability to help secure the network. We cannot responsibly ask people on the ground to remain exposed to rapidly rising transaction costs without a credible path to long-term survival, governance voice, and infrastructure security.

So this is not a departure in anger. It is a parting in sorrow, gratitude, and lessons learned.

Our request is simple:

To anyone who cares about the work of Grassroots Economics on Celo, please help us find and transition toward a new home with stronger guarantees for grassroots communities: predictable costs, meaningful governance participation, wider stakeholder involvement in major protocol or infrastructure changes, and credible pathways for community builders to help secure the systems they depend on. We are looking for an ecosystem where decentralization is not only a technical claim, but a lived governance practice that includes the communities most affected by its decisions.

We need time, support, and practical pathways for migration and protection. Our priority is to protect the people and communities already depending on these systems.

With gratitude to everyone who delegated to us, worked with us, challenged us, and believed in this shared experiment,

Will Ruddick

7 Likes