# Digest: 3 Mento governance proposals open for discussion (MGP-14/15/16) **URL:** \ **Category:** Governance Proposals\ **Created:** [February 13, 2026, 1:51pm UTC](https://forum.celo.org/t/digest-3-mento-governance-proposals-open-for-discussion-mgp-14-15-16/13017 "2026-02-13T13:51:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![bowd](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.celo.org/bowd/32/368_2.png) [@bowd](https://forum.celo.org/u/bowd)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2026, 1:51pm UTC](https://forum.celo.org/t/digest-3-mento-governance-proposals-open-for-discussion-mgp-14-15-16/13017/1 "2026-02-13T13:51:56Z")
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](https://forum.mento.org/t/mgp-14-mento-v3-deployment-phase-1/103) ### MGP-15: Mento Protocol Foundation Funding Request Funding request for the Mento Protocol Foundation, including rationale and intended use of funds to support continued protocol development and operations. [https://forum.mento.org/t/mgp-15-mento-protocol-foundation-funding-request/104/1](https://forum.mento.org/t/mgp-15-mento-protocol-foundation-funding-request/104/1) ### MGP-16: COPM and BRLM Renaming Proposes renaming **COPM** and **BRLM** to improve clarity/consistency and reduce confusion around these assets/tickers. [https://forum.mento.org/t/mgp-16-copm-and-brlm-renaming/105/1](https://forum.mento.org/t/mgp-16-copm-and-brlm-renaming/105/1) ### Timing / next steps 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**. 🙌 ---
**Author:** ![bowd](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.celo.org/bowd/32/368_2.png) [@bowd](https://forum.celo.org/u/bowd)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2026, 5:09pm UTC](https://forum.celo.org/t/digest-3-mento-governance-proposals-open-for-discussion-mgp-14-15-16/13017/2 "2026-02-14T17:09:03Z")
First pair up! > **[MGP-14: Mento V3 Deployment Phase 1](https://governance.mento.org/proposals/71353222444212059856429072671532241124680549912097157126587455658964246426988)** > > \## TL;DR Mento Labs is excited to begin deploying Mento V3 on Celo and Monad 🎉. In order to support the outlined flows, we ask the following of governance: ... > **[Celo Mondo](https://mondo.celo.org/governance/279)** > > Staking & Governance for Celo ---
**Author:** ![CeloColombia](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.celo.org/celocolombia/32/9767_2.png) [@CeloColombia](https://forum.celo.org/u/CeloColombia)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2026, 5:24pm UTC](https://forum.celo.org/t/digest-3-mento-governance-proposals-open-for-discussion-mgp-14-15-16/13017/3 "2026-02-14T17:24:32Z")
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**. ---
**Author:** ![Julian0xsoul](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.celo.org/julian0xsoul/32/11615_2.png) [@Julian0xsoul](https://forum.celo.org/u/Julian0xsoul)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2026, 5:36pm UTC](https://forum.celo.org/t/digest-3-mento-governance-proposals-open-for-discussion-mgp-14-15-16/13017/4 "2026-02-14T17:36:06Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![camilosaka](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.celo.org/camilosaka/32/11644_2.png) [@camilosaka](https://forum.celo.org/u/camilosaka)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2026, 6:06pm UTC](https://forum.celo.org/t/digest-3-mento-governance-proposals-open-for-discussion-mgp-14-15-16/13017/5 "2026-02-14T18:06:23Z")
* * * 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. ---
**Author:** ![bowd](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.celo.org/bowd/32/368_2.png) [@bowd](https://forum.celo.org/u/bowd)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2026, 7:43pm UTC](https://forum.celo.org/t/digest-3-mento-governance-proposals-open-for-discussion-mgp-14-15-16/13017/6 "2026-02-14T19:43:17Z")
Thank you all for the feedback! I hope you don’t mind but I’d like to move the conversation to the Mento Forum so I’ve answered there: [MGP-16: COPm and BRLm renaming - #2 by bogdan - Governance - Mento Forum](https://forum.mento.org/t/mgp-16-copm-and-brlm-renaming/105/2?u=bogdan) It makes it easier for us to keep track of discussions in one place. Thank you! Bogdan ---
**Author:** ![WairaTamayo](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.celo.org/wairatamayo/32/11646_2.png) [@WairaTamayo](https://forum.celo.org/u/WairaTamayo)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2026, 8:09pm UTC](https://forum.celo.org/t/digest-3-mento-governance-proposals-open-for-discussion-mgp-14-15-16/13017/7 "2026-02-14T20:09:58Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Dee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/58956e/32.png) [@Dee](https://forum.celo.org/u/Dee)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2026, 5:14pm UTC](https://forum.celo.org/t/digest-3-mento-governance-proposals-open-for-discussion-mgp-14-15-16/13017/8 "2026-02-20T17:14:07Z")
> [@bowd](#): > > ### MGP-15: Mento Protocol Foundation Funding Request > > Funding request for the Mento Protocol Foundation, including rationale and intended use of funds to support continued protocol development and operations. > [MGP-15: Mento Protocol Foundation Funding Request - Governance - Mento Forum](https://forum.mento.org/t/mgp-15-mento-protocol-foundation-funding-request/104/1) 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](https://governance.mento.org/proposals/79817624852068619985515935884901821263622880118971562290076370295817935556773) 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: 1. What is the concrete plan to increase the Reserve buffer and TVL over the next 6 to12 months? 2. 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). 3. 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”](https://forum.celo.org/t/launching-the-celo-tokenomics-initiative-designing-the-next-era-together/12749/22) narrative across the ecosystem). 4. Publish a simple dashboard + monthly reporting (Reserve buffer, net revenues, runway) until the loan is repaid and buffers are restored. ---
**Author:** ![HBesso31](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.celo.org/hbesso31/32/9336_2.png) [@HBesso31](https://forum.celo.org/u/HBesso31)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2026, 1:01am UTC](https://forum.celo.org/t/digest-3-mento-governance-proposals-open-for-discussion-mgp-14-15-16/13017/9 "2026-03-03T01:01:41Z")
I understand by reading here and in the Mento forum that the problem is a trademark issue. I am going through the same problem too, so I understand. My only recommendation is to to find a solution isolated but WITH the Colombian community who knows best what will work for adoption, which is at the end, the main goal.