Proposal for Extension of Score Management Committee and Additional Funding

Governance Governance Proposals
4

Hi,

Thank you for your valuable feedback!
I will respond to this with my personal opinion (not the opinion of the committee!) below:

Merging the original draft (Which has already been passed) into this one to give the community clear visibility.

Personally, I think this proposal should just focus on the expansion of the committee and not be bloated with duplicate and already existing content. We may summarize everything in a separate forum thread.

I think the committee is operating as transparent as possible and will communicate every operation (e.g. Score Management Committee - Results for week ending 13/04/2025)

The current RPC (uptime-)requirements have been communicated on various different channels: Forum, dedicated Discord validator channel (main validator communication channel), CELO docs, Validator and Governance Calls

Actively incorporating feedback from validators and other ecosystem participants.

I personally think as much feedback as possible has been sought and incorporated in the limited time available. The L2 migration was very time and resource consuming for all ecosystem participants. The Score Management Committee was a late addition and we did our best to come up with a workable and viable plan for the next 6 months.

Questions and concerns have also been clarified by Aaron and Martin in the initial forum thread.

It appears that you also unfortunately missed the Celo Governance Call #65. We explicitly requested to present this sub-proposal to the community in this Governance Call, as we wanted to reach and inform as many community members as possible and answer all remaining questions in this limited timeframe.

You can watch the presentation of the Score Management Committee by Aaron here:

Providing a detailed explanation of what exact problem this committee is solving, beyond uptime reporting (which, quite frankly, is a solvable problem that doesn’t require a high level of technical complexity).

  • Independently monitoring the Existence/Performance/Availability of the RPC Endpoint of each elected validator off-chain.
  • Every week, the Score Management Committee will collate their measurements, aggregate and average their scores for each validator, for the week prior.
  • Updating the validator scores on-chain (setValidatorScore / ScoreManager contract)
  • Slashing validators on-chain (GovernanceSlash contract)

Disclosing the role and responsibility of each member along with their credentials.

Responsibilities for each committee member:

  • Running and maintaining additional infrastructure including DB and indexer for uptime tracking. The stack utilized is open-sourced for anyone to verify (GitHub - celo-community/rpc-uptime-data: Simple RPC checking stack developed in Node/Typescript). An own implementation can also be utilized to ensure client diversity and avoid single point of failures, some committee members are already working on their own implementations (I personally aim to run each available implementation to achieve redundancy and diversity).
  • Dedicated time for performance evaluation, collaboration, multisig operations, and transparent communication

Current committee members:

I have included my proof in the initial forum thread, thank you for your reminder! (Set The Great Celo Halvening Parameters - #28 by clemens) also can be verified here: Ethereum Verified Signed Message

Aaron and Dee will also update the initial forum thread to include their signer verification.

Thanks again,
Clemens

5 Likes