We are a team of dedicated governance enthusiasts who have been in the governance space for over four years. Our team were some of the first members involved in defi governance and we want to apply what we have learned over the years to Celo.
Members of the team have been involved with Celo for over 3 years, including helping Uniswap v3 on the chain and partaking in their governance defi days in ETH Paris 2022! In addition to holding a sizable amount of the Celo token ourselves, we have invested in a few Celo native teams as well! We intend to keep and hold these tokens long term and continue to build our reserves, aligning ourselves financially with the DAO. We’re excited to become delegates and are grateful to be along for the journey!
Core Values:
Growth: Our decisions are primarily focused on the growth of the protocol. This often results in how to spend money efficiently, but even more importantly and objecting for unreasonable spends and knowing when to vote no.
Transparency: Clear communication with votes and explanations of reasoning, and an equivalent demand for proposals to do the same. Too often we see thousands, if not millions, being rolled up together and glossed over during proposals.
Accountability: Too often once a decision is done, having proper accountability becomes an afterthought. Whether it’s a DAO promise or a grant or a new program, once a DAO votes something in, we forget about it. Our goal with PGov is to both continue to check in on these decisions as well as ensure that there are proper channels set up to ensure accountability.
Conflicts of Interest:
If situations arise, we will abstain from a vote, and clearly state the conflict on the forums.
Focus on Growth, Transparency, and Accountability as mentioned above. In reality that means impactful proposals that drive adoption with metrics that are easy to understand and accountable to the DAO.
No timeline of funding and oversight from the DAO, no way of checking in (funds go to a blackbox). Generally we think most proposals should definitely be considered and some iteration or form of it favorable.
Growth in certain geographical regions and the strong narrative of alt-USDC stablecoins, including Refi focus.
Forum questioning is a good start but each scenario is different. A lot voice(s) for proposals usually can’t be ignored.
We voted Abstain: There’s a decent amount going on here that we’re having a hard time figuring out exactly the distinctions of what entity is paying who and what the issues with prior system were versus now. We’re not sure we have the context from the last few months to know exactly what is happening here. However, for much of the deliverables and budget, this seems reasonable, so we are not against this vote at all, just would like some more context and clarity. It would be great @0xj4an-work and @Wade to hop on a call and answer some questions we have if possible. If you have the time, our DMs are open:)
We voted Yes: For the cost and continuous scope of work, this seems very reasonable with well known trusted parties. Overall, we look forward to seeing the impacts of this proposal over the coming months and are excited to see the results.
We voted Yes: After learning a bit more and getting our questions answered, we are in favor. We are also in favor of this revote, as it seems the multisig that sanity checks these proposals was not able to review this proposal in time. Maybe we can think of ways in the future to prevent this from happening.