# Proposing Celo L2's Security Council **URL:** \ **Category:** Governance Proposals\ **Tags:** technical\ **Created:** [March 17, 2025, 11:15pm UTC](https://forum.celo.org/t/proposing-celo-l2s-security-council/10578 "2025-03-17T23:15:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 1
**Author:** ![martinvol](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/forum.celo.org/martinvol/32/7166_2.png) [@martinvol](https://forum.celo.org/u/martinvol)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2025, 11:15pm UTC](https://forum.celo.org/t/proposing-celo-l2s-security-council/10578/1 "2025-03-17T23:15:48Z")
# Proposing Celo L2’s Security Council cLabs is proposing the establishment of a Security Council to further decentralize the Celo L2 Network at the time of launch. This council will play a crucial role in safeguarding the network by managing key upgrades and security fixes. ## Responsibilities of the Security Council The Security Council is expected to fulfill the will of [Celo’s Onchain Governance](https://docs.celo.org/protocol/governance) related to the following operations: - Upgrading L1 protocol contracts for Celo’s L2 implementation. - Modifying designations for certain important roles in the system, such as sequencers (i.e., batchers), proposers, challengers, and membership on the Security Council multisig. - Executing urgent security fixes via a hotfix of the [Celo Contracts](https://docs.celo.org/contract-addresses). In rare instances, it can choose to take action without the regular [Governance Process](https://docs.celo.org/protocol/governance) to address an urgent matter so long as it does so in the Celo network’s best interest (e.g. fixing a security vulnerability). By establishing this Security Council, Celo moves closer to its Celo L2 decentralization goals: ensuring no single party is able to upgrade the system, modify rollup state, or censor transactions. Please note that the regular Governance Process of upgrading [Celo Core Contracts](https://docs.celo.org/contract-addresses) and allocating funds of the Celo Community Fund remains unchanged. ## Decentralization Impact Councils play a key role within Celo Governance, as they empower representatives to manage Celo resources and make decisions on behalf of tokenholders. With the introduction of the Security Council, we ensure: - No single entity can upgrade L1 protocol contracts - No single entity can modify L2 state - No single entity can censor L2 users from transacting onchain ## Proposed Multisig Following the [model](https://gov.optimism.io/t/security-council-vote-2-initial-member-ratification/7118) defined by the Optimism Foundation, cLabs is proposing a The Security Council that will operate through a multisig system structured as follows: A 2/2 [Safe](https://app.safe.global/) multisig with these members: 1. cLabs Mutisig 2. Celo Community Security Council The 2/2 structure ensures that a quorum-blocking group of non-cLabs controlled members exists at all times (i.e. cLabs cannot unilaterally push through changes to the L2 without the Celo Community Security Council’s approval). The cLabs Multisig will be managed internally with a 75% threshold initially as a 6 out of 8 multisig. The Celo Community Security Council is proposed to start as a 6/8 multisig consisting of the following inaugural members: 1. L2Beat 2. Hyperlane 3. Valora 4. Mento 5. Nitya Subramanian 6. Kris Kaczor 7. Tim Moreton 8. Aaron Boyd This proposed list will be posted for ratification via onchain governance ahead of the L2 hardfork. We plan to follow up with specific term durations and a process for renewals in the future. Collectively, this 2/2 multisig satisfies Vitalik’s security requirements for an L2 as outlined in the following [post](https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/proposed-milestones-for-rollups-taking-off-training-wheels/11571). Namely, the multisig has over 8 participants (13 in total across both multisigs), with a 75% threshold, and has a quorum blocking number of members that are outside of cLabs. Members are still provisioning their hardware wallets and will share addresses in the coming days. As is the case with the OP Security Council, addresses will not be linked to individuals/entities but will be posted to this thread as a complete list when it is ready so it can be compared to the onchain multisig. We encourage all proposed members to post to this thread to confirm that their address is in the list once it is posted. ## Security Standards Signers of the multisig will follow the [Optimism multisig security policy](https://gov.optimism.io/t/optimism-collective-multisig-security-policy-v1/9541), ensuring robust security practices inspired by the [OP Stack Multisig](https://docs.optimism.io/stack/security/faq-sec-model#op-stack-multisig), with the one difference that entities can choose to use nested multisigs so long as all signers conform to the same security policy. Signers required the to hold keys in safety deposit boxes and other secure locations outside of regular business and residential addresses. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.celo.org/t/proposing-celo-l2s-security-council/10578)._