Delegate Thread: yomfana

Governance Delegation
, , ,
1

TLDR: As a delegate, my goal is to champion transparent governance, advocate for accountability across the ecosystem, and support initiatives that drive meaningful adoption and impact.

Summary

Address: 0x214348e96A9F8ca3e4E7B02f668b9053803626F3
Mondo: https://mondo.celo.org/delegate/0x214348e96A9F8ca3e4E7B02f668b9053803626F3
Time zone: +2 GMT
Languages: English, Sesotho
Signal & PGP: paaster
Forum: Profile - yomfana - Celo Forum

Intro and governance ideals

Hi Celo community! I’m Ken, Former tech at Luno. Currently MSc at Wits. I am a strong advocate for privacy and meaningful blockchain adoption.

When it comes to Celo governance, I thoroughly scrutinize proposals/DAOs/projects that request community funding, both before and after approval, to ensure all stakeholders are held responsible for delivering real value. I have the expertise to independently track both on-chain and off-chain metrics and transactions to verify the claims made by any proposal/DAO/project and I’m not afraid to call out discrepancies. I will consistently advocate for initiatives that prioritize the end user over go-between “facilitators”.

I strongly support open-source-first projects. With a solid background in the EVM tech stack, I’m also well-equipped to engage in and contribute meaningfully towards technical governance decisions.

You can review my uncompromising approach to proposal scrutiny and ecosystem accountability through my contributions on the forum.

6 Likes
2

CGP 179 (Restore Spend Allowance to Stabila): Abstain

While I appreciate the intent behind the proposal (technical correction), my concerns stem from Stabila’s historical performance. The potential impact that could be generated from the last remaining funds remains uncertain and so does my notion of supporting them.

CGP 180 (JPY & NGN Oracle launch): Yes

On-chain representations of various forms of fiat is always a good thing.

1 Like
3

CGP 176 (Celo Camp 2025 S0-1): No

After reviewing the past Celo Camp GitHub discussions, it’s clear that many of the past participating projects have not progressed. The archive resembles more of a project graveyard than a launchpad of ongoing innovation.

Additionally, the budget allocation is highly disproportionate where operations receive 2.74x more funding than the participating teams themselves (as investments). Not only is this imbalance questionable, but it’s also important to note that the funding to teams is positioned as an investment; implying an expectation of returns. This could potentially put early-stage teams on the hook.

Approving this proposal without addressing these concerns could send the wrong signal about values and incentives in the Celo ecosystem.

CGP 182 (Launch of JPY & NGN): Yes

Not much to add here. I supported CGP 180, and this follow-up is consistent with that direction.

CGP 181 (Extension of Score Management Committee): Yes

I support the idea of community-run RPC nodes and recognize the need for a committed team to drive this initiative forward. While there were lapses in the governance process, I believe the Score Committee is not at fault. That responsibility lies primarily with the Celo Governance Guild. In hindsight, the L2 transition period was a high-pressure moment for both the original proposer (Martin) and the Guild, and I now see that greater flexibility was warranted at the time.

I initially leaned towards voting against due to past coordination issues, but after reflecting on where the accountability truly lies, I changed my mind. To vote against this proposal solely on that basis, when those issues were largely outside the committee’s control, would be punitive and ultimately diabolical.

I reviewed one of the committee member’s response in the @PGov thread, and the additional context provided makes the scope of work clear. Compared to other proposals, many of which request budgets magnitudes higher for smaller teams over similar periods, this budget is reasonable and modest. Unlike proposals like Stabila or Celo Camp, where past impact can be directly measured, this initiative is still ongoing. It would be unjust to retroactively cut funding now before the concept has had a chance to mature.

4 Likes
5

What validator group is this?

6

Flagged that comment for moderation due to spam/off-topic content.

7

Right I was confused, didn’t realise you were running a validator as well. But apparently it’s some spam bot.