We voted Yes: Adding oracle support for these stablecoins is logical and should facilitate more use cases in defi. Very similar reasoning to prior votes 177, 178, and 180.
We voted Against: We think the merits of the committee and the prior granted funding are valid. While we were not around for the beginning stages of the score management committee, we understand and see the value. However, in this case, we are not supportive of retroactive compensation in this core situation for a committee where new members were onboarded post start. A new vote to decide this composition and budget would be more appropriate in our opinions.
for a committee where new members were onboarded post start.
Thank you for sharing your perspectives. They may be some misunderstanding around this statement. The 2 new members have been part of the committee since before its formal ratification on-chain which was on the 30th of March (See execution of “CGP-169”). The working group communication channel, which included all 5 members, was created on the 26th of March. The first week’s score was published on the 13th (See Score Management Committee - Results for week ending 13/04/2025). This is also reflected in the proposal itself (See “Proposal description”).
A new vote to decide this composition…
An initial composition of the score management was a hard requirement on “Set The Great Celo Halvening Parameters” (See 9, Set RPC score commitee). Without a functioning ScoreManager multisig, the entire concept of Community RPC nodes would be compromised (Proposal: Validator Engagement During the Transition to Celo L2) as any elected community node would be free to collect rewards without actually running a node.
Having a 5 person committee ensures fair distribution of workload as some of us can either:
Focus on creating standards for community RPC nodes
Research innovative approaches to trustless up-time checking
Develop and maintain both new and existing up-time checking software and infrastructure (Open source, released as public goods).
Handle disputes
Any other responsibility deemed necessary
Also, A 3/5 multisig config is better than a 2/3 from a security perspective. It also adds operation flexibility and higher availability.
The actual individual composition of the committee consists of diverse long-time independent validators all of whom have a strong technical background in RPC node operations; a qualification deemed necessary for committee participation (Credentials are verifiable). Also it is worth noting that most, if not all, DAOs and communities on Celo have been formed voluntarily. An open call was also made for anyone interested to join this committee in the “Set The Great Celo Halvening Parameters” forum post.
and budget would be more appropriate in our opinions.
Fiscal responsibility and community oversight is important and we welcome ongoing scrutiny and transparency. That said, the committee itself has a 6 month runway. We are in the 2nd month of operation. The original budget was set, and transferred with the execution of CGP-169. The new budget is proportional to the original request (where it was deemed fair for the potential amount of work involved) and demonstrating impact require both time and coordination especially for a first time, novel initiative. It would be fair to retroactively re-evaluate the committee composition and budget at the end of the 6 months after assessing its impact.
Edit, we voted No: After hearing the discourse in the recent days and understanding the context in which the funds were given, we think this request should be reframed as a new request for funds as opposed to a simple rebalance, hence our vote against.
Thanks for sharing the reasoning, would it have been any different if instead of returning Celo and asking for the full cUSD amount, it would just have requested extra $60K cUSD?
We voted For & For: As mentioned, Oracles are critical to Mento’s stability mechanism, enabling exchanges between collateral and stable assets at accurate prices. Due to the operational complexity of Mento Labs maintaining these oracles the proposed move to chainlink and redstone price feeds makes sense.
We voted No: We think overall, there are still quite a few questions that need to be answered here and given no strong general sentiment either, we are voting against this proposal as is.
We voted Yes: This is routine maintenance work as well as some operational efficiencies worked in. These assets that are being underused should be depreciated and the process being streamlined will make things easier going forward.
We voted Yes: Incorporating community discussion and feedback, we think enabling MENTO governance makes sense and the processes outlined we reasonable. We have already voted prior with this support and believe the steps taken since have increased our support more.
We voted For: The vision and operational efficiencies introduced with this vote and budget are well received by the DAO and we are also in favor. The introduction of intents and a formal organized schedule make a lot of sense and we are excited for the future!
We voted For: We’ve seen similar style ecosystem level audit programs and believe this is in line and reasonable with these. No substantial concerns and we are convinced cLabs will act in the best interest of the DAO stewarding this program
EDIT: We have voted in support of the vote again, seeing that it was reuploaded.
We voted For: We’ve worked with Michael and the Stabila team pretty closely the last few months and can personally attest to their attentive and diligent work. We think these numbers and responses in the forums are reasonable and vote to proceed with this proposal.
We voted For: The proposal and budget outlined by the core team makes sense and is reasonable. It is an appropriate use of the OP funds in reserve and we are supportive of the overall mission.
We voted For: The proposed budget and scope are very reasonable. We have kept close track of H1 Celo Communities Guild and believe it has been a rather big success. We are looking forward to H2.
We voted Abstain: We don’t think we have enough context at this moment and frankly it’s a very substantial ask that we think deserves some more deep dive into before any budget is approved.
We voted Abstain: While we share in a lot of the positive feedback, we also agree with some of the sentiment that the budget is quite high. We would be in more support of a trial period first before diving fully into the full budget and proposal for now.
We voted For & For: With the transition to Seasons, this initial Season 1 funding makes a lot of sense to get the foundation of the ground and funding cLabs. The budgets are both reasonable and we are in favor of the setups.
We voted For: In favor of continuing the CICLOPS program. We think sustaining this program is paramount to keeping critical infrastructure up and running and think the budget for everything is pretty reasonable.