Hey everyone — quick (and very excited) digest of three Mento governance proposals now open for discussion on the Mento Forum.
MGP-14: Mento v3 Deployment (Phase 1)
This is the big one: the initial on-chain deployment plan for Mento v3 (Phase 1). If you’ve been waiting for the next chapter of the protocol, this is it — please jump in with feedback on scope and rollout details. https://forum.mento.org/t/mgp-14-mento-v3-deployment-phase-1/103
These proposals are expected to move on-chain over the next week. Updates (including any revisions) will be posted in the respective Mento Forum threads linked above.
Would love to hear thoughts — especially on Mento v3 Phase 1.
Thanks for the digest and for linking MGP-14/15/16.
On MGP-16 (COPm/BRLm renaming), from the Celo Colombia side we want to flag that we don’t see the need to rename COPm → COPmt, and if possible we ask that this change not be pursued.
When we previously raised that $COPM (Minteo) already exists on Celo, it was considered not a problem due to the capitalization difference ($COPm vs $COPM) and because Minteo is primarily B2B-focused while $COPm is geared toward end users. A second symbol change in such a short time introduces more friction (users, wallets, partners, education, support) than benefit.
If there is a new and concrete collision that justifies the change, it would be helpful to detail it; otherwise our position is to keep $COPm.
From Colombia, we have been making a significant effort to promote COPm. Its pronunciation is smooth, natural, and practical for content creation: COP EME. It is short, clear, and easy to remember. This has helped facilitate adoption across educational spaces, social media, and everyday conversations.
With the proposal to change the name to COPmt, several challenges arise:
The pronunciation becomes longer and less intuitive: COP EME TE.
It takes up more space in content pieces, headlines, and educational materials.
It is not clear to new users what the “m” represents or what the “t” stands for.
It may create unnecessary friction in onboarding and communication processes.
In emerging markets like Colombia, where we are still building understanding and trust around these assets, clarity and simplicity are not minor details, they are strategic.
As a Colombian and an ambassador of Celo in the country, I do not believe this name change supports the adoption work that has already been done. More than a technical update, for our community this represents a step backward in terms of positioning and memorability.
My position is not resistance to change, but a perspective grounded in direct, on-the-ground experience creating content and educating real users. If the goal is adoption, we need names that simplify, not complicate.
I invite the community to carefully evaluate the communication and community impact before moving forward with this change. Branding and narrative are also infrastructure.
I’m a bit concerned about doing another rename so soon. For communities like Celo Colombia, constant ticker/name changes make it harder to build long-term trust and mental models around the assets.
Not long ago we moved from $cCOP to $COPm. At the beginning there were concerns, but over time the ecosystem has been doing the work to promote and normalize $COPm. Changing again now could reset that progress.
Also, $COPmt feels more confusing, “mt” could mean Mento or Minteo (COPM issuer), which doesn’t necessarily improve clarity.
From a timing perspective, it may be better to keep the current naming for now and revisit a rebrand later, once $COPm has had more time to fully consolidate in the market and community.
Personally, I even felt $cCOP was clearer than $COPm or $COPmt, but regardless, stability in naming right now may be more valuable than optimizing branding again so quickly.
On MGP-16, I understand that this is technically a simple symbol update, contract addresses remain the same and no core mechanics change.
However, at the ecosystem level, tickers are more than metadata. They live across wallets, dashboards, educational materials, exchange interfaces, and community content. Even if integrations continue working, the coordination and communication effort required to realign everything is real.
Local stable assets build strength through repetition and consistency over time. Allowing a naming convention to mature can contribute more to long term credibility than refining it again so soon.
I also agree with the previous comments that, given the recent transition from cCOP to COPm, another change may feel disruptive for many users. From a practical standpoint, pronunciation and memorability matter, especially in educational and grassroots contexts.
Having read the discussion, I wanted to add this ecosystem and adoption lens to what has already been shared. If the goal is clarity and long-term growth, timing and consolidation may be just as important as technical precision.
I am extremely concerned by this. I want Mento V3 and the token launch to succeed. I’m voting NO on MGP-15 as written because the Reserve is the stability backstop, not a recurring operating wallet. That weakens confidence exactly when we need it most.
MGP-15 states the Reserve is ~1.4x collateralized with about $6.7m of overcollateralization. A $3.75m draw removes ~56% of that safety buffer in one step. That’s a major hit to confidence for a system whose #1 job is to preserve the peg.
MGP-10 already proposed selling $9m of Reserve BTC/ETH for funding. Before governance approves more, we need spend-to-date, remaining runway, and what changed vs. the prior budget made just 5 months ago.
If the goal is a token launch, that’s venture-style risk and should be financed via investors / token-sale economics, not by shrinking the insurance fund that protects stablecoins holders.
I will change my vote to YES if MGP-15 is restructured in this manner:
What is the concrete plan to increase the Reserve buffer and TVL over the next 6 to12 months?
Treat the full $12.75m as a loan to the Foundation, repaid to the Reserve from protocol fees and/or token launch proceeds (align upside with the Reserve that takes the risk).
Immediate alignment with Celo: route a defined % of Mento protocol fees into a transparent mechanism (Reserve replenishment first; and then a fee-vault model that creates a clean “More usage = more yield” narrative across the ecosystem).
Publish a simple dashboard + monthly reporting (Reserve buffer, net revenues, runway) until the loan is repaid and buffers are restored.
MGP-14: Mento v3 Deployment (Phase 1)