Reduce Elected Validator Count to 45 - DRAFT

[ddd]

@yomfana

Back then, there were no emergency measures. No proposals to address “excessive spending.” No concern about “runway risk.” The treasury’s trajectory was already baked into the decision-making process.

@yomfana

I agree. If the same level of rigor that’s being applied to validators were also applied to ecosystem spending, then it would be fair. Right now, a lot of programs are getting a free pass for writing glossy reports that say very little. I haven’t seen a single detailed expenditure report from any major ecosystem recipient. It’s always the same pattern: five lines of budget requests, and six months later, five lines of “financial reporting” stating that all funds were used up.

@yomfana

wait for Season 1 performance reports. Let the community assess all ecosystem programs based on actual deliverables and measurable performance, then adjust funding proportionally.
Why are validators being singled out before there’s any transparency on other ecosystem programs have performed?

Hi @yomfana this forum thread by @WillRuddick directly addresses the concerns you raised: Riding the Celo Bus Together - An Urgent Invitation to Safe Dialogue and Real Repair

In the lead-up to the Celo intents, several community members (including me) pushed for stronger accountability mechanisms, a shared cultural manifesto around trust, and, critically, a clear conflict of interest policy. Our voices didn’t seem to land during deliberations, which discouraged many of us from continuing to advocate. That’s why I’m grateful to see @WillRuddick reigniting this conversation in the forum.