Regional Hubs 2025: A Recommended Evolution of Celo Regional DAOs

Ecosystem DAOs
1

This is a concept for a Regional Hub program to replace the traditional Regional DAO concept. The aim of this thread is to get community input and potentially merge into CeloPG 2025 proposal or submitted as a standalone proposal.

TL;DR

As Celo prepares to join the Superchain through the CEL2 migration, the importance of a global network of agile and impactful hubs has never been more apparent. This thread presents a reimagined framework for Regional DAOs, drawing insights from Celo Regional DAOs: A Retrospective on 2024. It serves as an open invitation for Regional DAO operators and other stakeholders to share their perspectives and help refine this process.

1. The Vision

With the L2 Migration on the horizon, Celo stands at a pivotal crossroads in refining its role within the Superchain and broader Ethereum ecosystems. Since its inception, Celo has explored a variety of narratives. Still, none have resonated as strongly as the Home of Impact, Stables, and Financial Inclusion. As Celo moves into 2025, the focus is on solidifying these core narratives and fully embracing the Impact Era

This vision requires a balance between top-down alignment and bottom-up innovation. Regional Hubs are positioned as the operational backbone of this strategy, fostering innovation, creating feedback loops, driving grassroots adoption, and aligning local initiatives with Celo’s global mission.

Key pillars of this approach include:

  • Localized Impact: Tailoring global strategies to address individual regions’ distinct cultural and economic needs, ensuring relevance and engagement.
  • Scalable Systems: Implementing tiered funding models, measurable impact frameworks, and onchain tools to enhance transparency, accountability, and sustainable growth.
  • Ecosystem Integration: Establishing connections between Celo and the Superchain, facilitating collaboration with other Superchain members, and scaling innovation across the broader ecosystem.

2. Why a Global Network of Hubs

A global Regional hub network is essential for scaling Celo’s vision. These hubs act as localized impact drivers, ensuring Celo’s narrative and solutions resonate in diverse cultural and economic contexts. These are some key reasons they’re critical for growth and development:

Why Description
Localized Impact and Adoption Regional Hubs tailor Celo’s mission to the unique needs of their communities, fostering trust and engagement that drive wallet adoption, stablecoin usage, and ecosystem growth.
Scalable and Decentralized Expansion A distributed network allows Celo to scale its presence across regions, enabling faster, more sustainable growth.
Bridging the Global and Local Regional Hubs ensure Celo’s global strategy aligns with regional realities, translating high-level goals into actionable initiatives on a local level.
Strengthening the Superchain Presence As part of the Ethereum Superchain, Hubs can collaborate with other ecosystem players to build Celo’s identity and create attractors for developers and partners.
Driving The Impact Era Regional Hubs enable bottom-up innovation, empowering local communities to shape solutions to reinforce Celo’s overarching financial inclusion and sustainability mission.

3. The Challenge

While Regional DAOs have made significant strides in advancing Celo’s mission, the following challenges are in the way of them realizing their full potential:

Challenge Description
Inefficient Fund Allocation Limited transparency on spending and inconsistent processes have led to funds being allocated to projects with unclear impact.
Difficulty Measuring Impact A lack of standardized metrics and reporting frameworks makes it hard to track success and demonstrate the value of initiatives.
Fragmented Efforts Regional DAOs often operate in silos, resulting in duplicated efforts and missed opportunities for collaboration.
Regional Alignment with Global Goals Poor communication between DAOs, and the Foundation leads to inefficiencies and missed opportunities for collaboration, resource-sharing, and alignment.
Overreliance on Celo Capital Regional DAOs rely exclusively on grants from Celo, limiting their ability to diversify funding streams or build self-sustaining revenue models.
Lack of Accountability Mechanisms Weak accountability structures make it difficult to track whether DAOs meet their goals and utilize resources effectively.

4. Proposed Improvements

To address these challenges, the following key improvements are recommended. These recommendations aim to enhance the program’s scalability, transparency, and impact while fostering collaboration:

Improvement Description
Improve Communication and Collaboration Establish channels between Regional Hubs, Ambassadors, and the Celo Foundation to align efforts and share resources.
Implement an Impact Framework Develop onchain standards for tracking success and demonstrating measurable outcomes.
Diversify Funding Sources Build sustainable business models, reduce grant reliance, and explore external partnerships.
From DAOs to Hubs Transition to agile and efficient hub models, reducing governance complexity while maintaining accountability.
Expand Cross Regional Collaboration Foster initiatives that encourage knowledge-sharing and alignment between hubs.
Superchain Integration Position Regional Hubs to collaborate with other Superchain members, leveraging shared opportunities for growth and innovation.

5. What Would Change?

The following changes are proposed to achieve the vision for 2025. These adjustments are designed to streamline operations, enhance collaboration, and establish scalable frameworks that strengthen the role of Regional Hubs.

- From DAOs to Hubs:
Not all regional DAOs currently operate as DAOs, and the requirements to run a proper DAO can slow down the nature of these hubs. Hubs should be agile, flexible, and able to test ideas quickly. Regional DAOs should transition to Regional Hubs and operate as initiative-driven teams if the scope allows.

- Phased Tier Structure for DAOs:
After two years of development and refinement, Regional DAOs have naturally evolved into various forms, sizes, and purposes, influenced by their unique contexts and goals. To better support their growth and ensure alignment with broader objectives, a tiered framework is recommended:

  • Tiered System
    • Seed Hub: New hubs | 3 months | $2,500 to $10,000. Focussed on quick results, building grassroots community engagement, and testing initial ideas to establish credibility and impact.
    • Growth Hub: Proven track record | 6 months | $10,000 to $50,000. Focussed on building a more structured and extensive program in regions where earlier success has been demonstrated.
    • DAO Hub: Mature DAO | 12 months | $50,000 to $150,000. Focussed on driving community-wide adoption, developed onchain governance system, and established frameworks to onboard regional contributors within their DAO.

- Mission-Driven Ambassador Program:
The lack of clarity on collaboration opportunities on an individual level often hinders the bottom-up impact potential for newcomers. To address this, an ambassador program is proposed to foster individual-driven initiatives. This helps cultivate a talent pool to transition into more significant hub roles.

  • Ambassador Program
    • Small Grants: Funding of $500 to $2,000 for short-term, impactful projects.
    • Short Timeframes: Missions are designed to be completed within 1–3 months for quick, measurable results.
    • Mandatory Training: Ambassadors must complete a short crash course on project planning, impact measurement, and community engagement training.
    • Predefined Missions: Work on seasonal missions set by Celo PG or the Regional Hub Council, such as promoting stablecoin adoption or organizing ReFi events.
    • Not Meant For Hub Members: This program is targeted at newcomers who are not involved yet in a Regional DAO.

- Regional Hub Council or Lead: There is a clear need for improved communication between Regional Hubs and Ecosystem Partners. This gap often leads to missed collaboration, resource-sharing, and alignment opportunities. Creating a Regional Hub Council can address these issues by facilitating:

  • Monthly Meetings: Once a month, each hub, ambassadors, Celo PG, and the Celo Foundation can share updates discuss growth, and surface challenges.
  • 1 v 1: Ideally, every hub lead meets with the Regional Hubs program lead monthly to provide support or address concerns.
  • Proposal Discussions: Act as a forum for reviewing and refining proposals to ensure alignment with ecosystem priorities.
  • Strategic Alignment: Establish overarching goals, address regional overlaps, and find synergies to amplify.
  • Resource Sharing: Share best practices, resources, and tools across hubs to drive efficiency and effectiveness.
  • Accountability: Track progress and ensure hubs and ambassadors are meeting key deliverables.

The Regional Hub Lead can provide guidance based to new and existing hubs on the knowledge gathered across hubs, ensuring successful strategies are shared and there’s active support across regions.

- Impact Framework
Measuring the success of Regional Hubs and the Ambassador Program requires a clear and transparent framework. By standardizing KPIs and leveraging onchain metrics, we can track outcomes to ensure accountability, and demonstrate the value of initiatives across the ecosystem.

  • Measurable Impact Framework
    • Standardized KPIs: Define metrics for winning verticals.
    • Onchain Data Points: Use tools like POAPs to track attendance, validate wallet activity through transaction records, and measure referrals onchain.
    • Monthly Reporting: Require hubs and ambassadors to submit updates detailing their achievements against KPIs, challenges faced, and proposed improvements.
    • Accountability Audits: Periodically review on-chain data and reports to validate results, address discrepancies, and improve the system over time.

- Budget
In the past cycles, up to 70% of the budget went to a smaller number of groups. While this approach has supported key initiatives, it has limited opportunities for smaller hubs and individuals to explore untapped markets. A refined budget allocation is proposed to ensure a more equitable distribution in 2025.

  • Budget Changes
    • Expand Access for Smaller Hubs: Seed Hubs enable quick, high-impact initiatives and provide feedback on new markets.
    • Support Individual Missions: Dedicated to grassroots projects through the Ambassador Program.
    • Diversify Resource Allocation: Reduce over-concentration of funds in a few groups to open opportunities for smaller hubs and new initiatives.
    • Increase Accountability: Implement benchmarks and audits to validate spending & track outcomes.

6. Budget

The following budget distribution for 2025 opens up the conversation for a more equitable distribution. This approach encourages mature hubs to streamline expenses by focusing on high-ROI activities and eliminating less impactful initiatives that may inflate proposals.

Regional Hubs should be encouraged to engage with third-party co-funders, including local grants, sponsorships, or new ways of funding that come with joining the Superchain. By involving third parties with vested interests, the overall costs to Celo can be reduced while increasing commitment and accountability from external partners.

Budget Overview

Category Amount (USD) Percentage
Program Management and Ops $50,000 7%
Hub Support $35,000 5%
Seed Hubs $70,000 10%
Growth Hubs $170,000 25%
Mature Hubs $325,000 46%
Ambassador Program $50,000 7%
Total $700,000 100%

7. Proposed next steps

The following steps are proposed to ensure the successful start of the Regional Hub Program in 2025. These actions focus on refining the program, finalizing its scope, and integrating it into the prospective CeloPG 2025 proposal. This marks the transition from the existing DAO structure to the enhanced Regional Hub Model and provides a clear timeline for implementation.

Regional Hub Program Timeline
Regional Hub Program Timeline2026Ă—758 123 KB

8. To Conclude

This proposal outlines a vision for evolving the Regional DAOs program to address current challenges and establishes a more detailed framework moving forward. To create a final, well-rounded perspective, It is requested that Regional DAO leads, CeloPG members and the broader community provide their insights, as this is essential to reflect the ecosystem’s diverse needs.

12 Likes
2

Hey @NikoG

First of all, I want to express my general alignment with the proposal’s direction. The move toward a more structured Regional Hub framework is an exciting evolution that aligns with the need for scalability, transparency, and coordination.

However, I do have some specific concerns regarding autonomy and budget constraints. Here are a few thoughts and questions I’d like to share, which I’m sure will expand as we further digest thos proposal in the coming days.

Concerns about Budget Reductions

My primary concern lies in the limited budget allocation for mature DAOs, such as Africa and Europe. Based on the proposed budget caps, the maximum funding for Europe would be $150k, representing a reduction of over 35% compared to the past year. This is a significant decrease in resources, especially at a time when Regional DAOs are expected to pivot toward securing alternative funding sources.

The transition to new funding models requires both time and resources. A reduction of this magnitude risks undermining the ability of mature DAOs to make this shift effectively, potentially slowing down momentum.

Balancing Value and Autonomy

I strongly agree with the need for a Coordinator Hub, but I believe its role must go beyond acting as an intermediary. It should add real value to the ecosystem by facilitating meaningful coordination, providing support, and avoiding becoming a centralized bottleneck.

There is a thin line between empowering Regional DAOs and centralizing power, and this balance must be carefully managed. The hub should focus on:

  • Standardizing key processes and KPIs to ensure alignment.
  • Allowing sufficient flexibility for Regional Hubs to maintain their creativity and adaptability.

Coordination Tools and Processes

I’ve previously suggested the use of open coordination tools like Notion to enhance transparency and streamline operations. However, the Celo Notion platform has shown outdated data and limited adoption, which raises concerns about how tools will be effectively implemented in this new framework.

I’d like to understand more about:

  1. How coordination will be operationalized within the proposed framework.
  2. How processes and KPIs will be standardized while preserving innovation.
  3. What tools and systems will ensure accountability while supporting regional flexibility.

A well-designed on-chain coordination tool could address many of these concerns. By being modular and capable of centralizing information from different stakeholders, such a tool could enhance transparency, efficiency, and accountability across the ecosystem.

Smaller Regional Hubs: Scaling with Support

The idea of promoting smaller regional hubs is compelling. However, I believe their success will depend heavily on support from larger, mature DAOs like Africa, Europe, and Latam. I cannot envision the Coordinator Hub managing all this information and oversight independently.

Instead, the Coordinator Hub could establish overarching guidelines, with mature DAOs taking on the role of supporting and coordinating smaller hubs. For instance, in the case of Celo EU:

  • Celo EU could assist in the creation of smaller hubs, ensuring alignment with broader goals while maintaining seamless coordination with the Coordinator Hub.

This “last-mile” approach would scale operations effectively without overburdening the Coordinator Hub, leveraging the expertise of established DAOs. And the same can be applied for ambassador

Accountability and Audits

I am fully aligned with the proposal to increase accountability and audits. These are essential not only for financial transparency but also for ensuring operational effectiveness.

I also believe that personal accountability should be emphasized. To achieve this, an on-chain accountability program could be instrumental. By centralizing data from various players and stakeholders in a modular, transparent manner, such a system could:

  • Provide real-time insights into performance.
  • Foster collaboration.
  • Strengthen trust and alignment across the ecosystem.

Overall, I see a lot of potential in this proposed evolution, and I appreciate the thoughtful approach taken. Addressing these concerns—particularly around budget, autonomy, and operational details—will be critical to ensuring the long-term success of the Regional Hub framework.

Looking forward to further discussions on this important topic!

7 Likes
3

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and raising these points. Below, I’ve addressed each of your points in detail, so let’s dive into it:

Re: Budget Reductions - I can understand how this feels like a significant reduction, but in the case of Celo EU, this is realistically closer to ~15% when accounting for outlier costs like Celo Gather, which was meant to be initially a substitute for Celo Connect. Nevertheless, I think this is a tricky balance to figure out, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on solutions.

Using last year’s numbers as a baseline, if we allocate $550K between Celo EU and Celo Africa, even a modest 10% reduction would still result in these two hubs consuming ~70% of the total budget, leaving only ~30% for Seed, Growth, and Ambassador initiatives. How do you propose we balance maintaining momentum for mature hubs while fostering inclusivity and opportunities for emerging hubs?

Re: Balancing Value and Autonomy - The proposed Regional Hub Council would consist of representatives from each Regional Hub alongside appointed members from Celo Foundation. This structure ensures that all Regional Hub leads have an equal voice, making it difficult to centralize power. The Council’s role is to foster collaboration and coordination across hubs, not to interfere with individual hubs’ autonomy, creativity, or adaptability.

Regarding the appointed lead, their role would be purely operational—focused on supporting the Council, Individual Hubs on different fields, facilitating logistics, and ensuring smooth communication. All governance and decision-making would remain firmly in the hands of Regional Hub leads. This setup is designed to provide support without removing the independence or creativity of any hub.

Re: Coordination Tools and Processes - I agree that using a streamlined Notion or similar platform has potential but requires a more thoughtful approach to ensure it is effectively adopted. Outdated data and limited usage, as you mentioned, highlight the need for thought through long-term approach.

Regarding your questions on coordination and tools is precisely the purpose of this thread. The intention is to gather insights and feedback from contributors like yourself to help shape the most effective path forward. I’m actively exploring these questions as part of this proposed evolution of the program, and I will dive deeper if this initial draft gets positive support from the other stakeholders.

You’ve suggested onchain coordination tools aligns with the goals mentioned and I’d be very interested to hear more about specific onchain solutions you believe are worth exploring within the context of Regional Hubs.

Re: Smaller Regional Hubs - As you mentioned, there’s a fine line between empowering smaller hubs and creating a centralized power dynamic. If smaller hubs are required to align with a mature DAO’s broader goals, it could unintentionally hinder their autonomy and adaptability.

However, the idea of mature hubs taking a natural supporting role has already been built into the proposed Regional Hub Council. This council, consisting of all regional DAO leads, provides an opportunity for collaboration, mentorship, and shared learning without imposing hierarchical control. If the council collectively encourages this kind of collaboration, it can happen organically within the framework, rather than as a top-down approach.

Ultimately, the goal is to strike a balance that ensures smaller hubs receive the guidance and resources they need while maintaining their independence to experiment, innovate, and cater to their unique contexts. I’d love to hear your thoughts on further refining this approach.

Re: Accountability and Audits - I agree that this is essential. However, I’d like to request that you elaborate on the specifics you’ve mentioned. Your suggestions sound valuable but seem quite broad.

What specific tools or processes do you envision being used to provide real-time insights into performance? Are there particular onchain solutions, dashboards, or frameworks you think should be implemented?

Moreover, how do you suggest balancing personal accountability with the collaborative and decentralized nature of Regional Hubs? Your input could help us refine these ideas into actionable solutions rather than leaving them as general aspirations.

To conclude, thank you for your insights, and I am looking forward to using these to continue giving form to this program proposal.

5 Likes
4

Thank you, @NikoG, for the detailed and thoughtful proposal. While I agree with the need of a more structured framework for Regional HUBs I don;t think this proposal is the best way to solve the problems higlighted in Celo Regional DAOs: A Retrospective on 2024 and I’d like to raise some concerns similar to the ones raised by @Joan_DeRB and share alternative suggestions for consideration.

Coordinator Hub as a Potential Bottleneck

The concept of a Coordinator Hub has merit in aligning efforts, but I’m concerned it could become a centralized bottleneck, limiting flexibility and slowing decision-making. Why is a centralized Coordinator Hub necessary? Would it not be more efficient to have a self-managed committee formed by representatives from each Regional Hub? This decentralized approach would ensure that all Hubs have an equal voice and foster greater collaboration without over-reliance on a single entity.

Program Management Role

The proposal mentions a Program Management position. Could you clarify who is being considered for this role and how much the monthly cost would be?

I’m not convinced this role is necessary. If the Coordinator Hub were replaced with a self-managed committee, the Program Management tasks could be distributed among the committee members or absorbed into existing Hub structures. This would reduce overhead costs and further decentralize operations.

Equal Representation for All Hubs

The differentiation between “big regional hubs” and “small country hubs” may unintentionally create hierarchies and discourage smaller regions. I propose that every Hub, regardless of size, should have equal voting power. Each Hub should be valued equally, and decisions should reflect the collective will of all regions without bias.

Decentralizing the Ambassador Program

Centralizing the Ambassador Program under the Coordinator Hub may reduce adaptability and grassroots effectiveness. Instead, why not assign an Ambassador budget directly to each Regional Hub? This would allow Hubs to tailor ambassador activities to local contexts and priorities. A sustainable model could involve integrating Ambassador funding into the overall Hub budgets, with each proposal allocating, for example, 10% for Ambassador-related tasks. This ensures localized impact and accountability without unnecessary central oversight.

Balancing Global Goals and Regional Autonomy

While standardizing metrics and processes is essential, it’s equally important to maintain regional creativity and adaptability. We should focus on tools and frameworks that enable collaboration without imposing unnecessary constraints.

HUB Support Budget

Could you provide more clarity on what the HUB Support Budget is intended for? What specific activities, tools, or initiatives would this budget cover? Is it for operational support, capacity-building, or something else? Without a detailed breakdown, it’s hard to evaluate whether this is necessary or if these resources could be directly allocated to the Hubs themselves for greater efficiency and impact.

Last I would like to call all Regional DAO or HUBs leads or members to leave their feedback here @CeloArabia @CeloAfricaDAO @celomexico @CeloColombiano @CeLatam @Vow @parnaigon @Numpon @cristpereirag @MilaRioja @martinvol @GerryAlvrz @hope @Aliu @allanlee @Baale7 @chuta @mbarbosa @cryptodayph @maximpact @nauman @minmaxi @aoencrypted @Ximemonclou @londo maybe missing someones… feel free to tag them…

11 Likes
5

Hey @0xj4an-work, I Love to see you here providing input on this proposal. I would love to have more of these types of input as this truly helps define collectively the best way forward. I’ve managed to provide detailed feedback on your comments below:

Re: Coordinator Hub - The original proposal did not include a Coordinator Hub but outlined a Regional Hub Council. This would be a self-managed committee composed of representatives from each Regional Hub with an equal voice. The goal is to foster collaboration, streamline communication, and align efforts across hubs without introducing centralized control.

Re: Program Management Role - The Program lead would be a facilitator, ensuring consistency, accountability, and timely execution of shared goals. This could help avoid risks of potential misalignment that can happen with a self-managed committee. This is an initial concept, and there is no open consideration for this role. The final scope and allocation should be shaped based on the stakeholder’s input.

Re: Equal Representation for all hubs - The distinction between regional and country hubs, as initially raised by Joan, was never included in the original proposal for the same reasons you’ve highlighted. I agree that equal voting power as this is a key principle to ensure fairness and inclusivity.

Re: Decentralizing the Ambassador Program - On the contrary, I believe having a Regional Hub Council vote on ambassador applications—with equal voting power for all hub leads—ensures fairness and avoids centralizing the process.

While your proposal assumes every Regional Hub can and wants to independently manage an Ambassador Program, many already face bandwidth challenges. This could lead to fragmented approaches and inefficiencies. A council-driven, collaborative approach ensures fairness, supports external innovation, and avoids these challenges.

Within the scenario you mentioned where each Regional Hub is running its own Ambassador Program, what happens when an ambassador has a great idea but doesn’t have a Regional DAO to which they can apply? (For instance, Asia region) Or if Regional Hubs prioritize their internal teams, potentially excluding innovative external contributions?

Re: Balancing Global Goals and Regional Autonomy - I wholeheartedly agree with your perspective.

Re: Hub Support Budget - This is indeed intended for operational support, cross-regional collaborations, and capacity-building efforts outside individual hubs’ scope. That said, this is an initial concept, and the final scope and allocation should be shaped by stakeholder input to serve the program’s goals best.

Looking forward to continue exploring these points with you.

1 Like
6

May I ask,

  1. how many individuals (real persons) does each regional hub consist of?

  2. Is this number countable and/or defined?

  3. Is this number a stable number or it can increase or decrease?

7

Thank you, @NikoG , for your detailed response. I appreciate the opportunity to dive deeper into these topics and reframe some of my comments and questions more constructively.

Budget Considerations

It is our intention to minimize Celo EU’s budget to empower other initiatives and ensure a more equitable distribution of resources across the ecosystem. However, this reduction comes with challenges that must be acknowledged.

The proposed 24% reduction in budget (after excluding Celo Gather) raises concerns about having enough resources to address key areas of improvement while also exploring alternative income sources for long-term sustainability. This shift requires time and investment in order to be effective, and any further budget constraints may hinder progress in critical areas.

Nevertheless, after conducting some simulations, a $150,000 budget could work for Celo EU. I will provide more detailed information on this specific topic in the first draft proposal for Celo EU 2025.

Accountability

I fully agree on the need to improve accountability. To keep this process efficient and accessible, I suggest a simple, transparent approach:

  • Open spreadsheets and invoices for clear and easy tracking.
  • On-chain traceability for transactions, potentially leveraging frameworks like Coinshift to centralize and simplify oversight.
  • Regular feedback loops to enable continuous improvement and align expectations across all contributors.

This approach provides a robust yet manageable framework for ensuring transparency and trust without overcomplicating the process.

Coordination and Documentation

Improving coordination will require clear and practical documentation. To align efforts not only for solo contributors but also across Regional Hubs, 101 guides and resources will need to be created.

However, this requires realism: aligning diverse stakeholders and regions takes significant time and effort. Simplified workflows and clear processes should remain the focus, allowing flexibility for Regional Hubs to adapt to their unique contexts while staying aligned with overarching goals.

On-Chain Coordination Tools

Celo EU is already working on a potential on-chain coordination solution, led by AXMC, a Europe-based developers’ cooperative. This solution is designed to be modular and easily integrated with existing Celo on-chain tools, ensuring it does not drain too much resources allocated for the 2025 season. Once it’s ready, we’ll happily share it with the ecosystem as a proof of concept for broader adoption.

Additionally, we are exploring the use of tools like CharmVerse for on-chain allocation processes, similar to how Prezenti operates. This could help standardize operations while maintaining flexibility and supporting diverse initiatives.

While some doubts are natural, I’m aligned with the need for better coordination across the ecosystem. I believe the proposed changes present an opportunity for growth, and I look forward to collaborating with the community to refine these ideas.

1 Like
8

We applaud the proposal for having a global network of hubs. The proposal seems well thought for a draft, now it should be enriched with the feedback of those participating in the existing Hubs as well as from the delegates.

Our thoughts:

We agree on the challenges you outline. In summary: Reaching a standarization of metrics, enforce accountability, break the silos of knowledge and communicaton, and the aim to reach self-sustaining revenue models.

The improvements proposed sounds good in the general view, now let’s look at their details:

From DAOs to Hubs.

While we agree that DAOification is a burden to set up and means less speed than centralized control, it is also part of the narrative. DAOs don’t need to be complex. In fact, most DAOs are not even DAOs, but they are in the path of. So we suggest the following set of minimal requirements to Regional HUBs:

  • Regionals HUBs should have Multisign with at least 2/3 participants.
  • Use of Charmverse or other DAO Tools for internal forum with all proposals executed in the multi-sig to be explained in their charmverse.

The above will ensure transparency and accountability.

If Hubs need assistance to do the above, then that should be provided by the Facilitator/Coordinator.

Phased tier structure for Regional HUBs

Certainly, proving their way in must be done so resources are not spent or allocated without any data to support that decision.

Mission-driven ambassador program

Great idea. These missions should be co-designed by the Regional Hubs and the Regional HUB Council.

The mandatory training is a great way to achieve professionalization. We suggest to turn these trainings into onchain “stamps” or “badges” so they can unlock things like the tiered system for funding.

The description of the Regional HUB Lead sounds like a job for an AI, like a knowledge keeper where one can reach to.

AIso have been proven great for recording meeting agreements, and for accessing knowledge banks. Such AI would cost less than a human for such a job.

Complementarily, a human could be welcomed if provided a role to facilitate coordination among HUBs and participants, but it won’t be welcomed if that person becomes a gatekeeper or middle-man between the Hubs and the Regional HUB Council resources.

A combination of AI and a facilitator could be attractive, also, the facilitator role could be a role that participants from the HUBs get for a period of time and then switch, that could increase the coordination skills of all involved instead of relying on a single person.

We should strive for a combination of resilience, efficiency of resources, skill up our own people, and mission-driven outcomes that are co-designed with the community.

In conclusion, while the proposal is great overally, it should be enriched with the already expressed opinions from Regional HUB participants and Community Members. AI and switching the facilitator role could bring resiliency, accountability, efficient use of resources, and a collective level up on skills and experiences.

Looking forward to seeing how this unfolds.

3 Likes
9

Greetings @NikoG, and thanks for this thoughtful draft and for bringing forward these initiatives. It’s clear that this requires a lot of work, and you’ve brought valuable insights and visions into the future.

I’d like to add a couple of comments:

1. Budget Reduction

I can’t help but notice the budget reduction from last year’s $800K in 2024 to this $700K for 2025. Is there a specific reason for this? Is the $700K budget intended for the entire year or just for H1? Understanding this would help contextualize the scale and expectations for regional initiatives. The reduction of this budget brings imbalance when funding mature hubs and the smaller hubs, as when growth hubs reach the mature stage, there will be no funding left for them again as the mature hubs funds will have been allocated from the start, leaving no room for HUBs to further grow or turn into mature Hubs.

As you mentioned:

I believe that this year’s efforts will need to be doubled from a marketing point of view to increase the reach and engagement Celo has in the L2 “rat race.” This is an opportunity to bring more highlights into this “Impact Era” while activating real-world use cases based on blockchain and awakening more regions to participate.

2. DAOs vs. Hubs

I see some dissonance in whether the program should be about DAOs or Hubs.

From my perspective, the end game should be decentralization. DAOs have the potential to be the next generation of companies. Why not display the power of DAOs as part of a decentralized blockchain?

The challenges you outlined—lack of transparency, inconsistent frameworks, and difficulty measuring impact—aren’t flaws of DAOs themselves but rather consequences of not having proper operational guidelines. This is normal, as DAOs as a concept are still maturing and defining their frameworks globally.

To address these challenges, what’s needed is:

  • Clear definitions of what qualifies a Regional DAO (team members, size, specialization, traction, etc.).
  • Defined tooling to streamline operations.
  • Clear metrics and deliverables.
  • Transparent budgeting to outline operational costs vs. activity funding.
  • Standardized reporting to reduce speculation about fund allocation.

This clarity would resolve much of the tension around whether to call them DAOs or Hubs.

3. MvD Tooling and Streamlined Processes

To support the concept of a Minimum Viable DAO (MvD), the program should provide streamlined tooling that aligns with decentralization while showcasing Celo’s products or onchain solutions. For example:

  • Safe Wallet: For treasury management and multi-signature security.
  • Snapshot Forum: To facilitate transparent, community-driven voting.
  • Community Tokens: Each community could issue its own token to represent voting power, distributed to members who attend events or actively participate in the DAO activities.

This approach not only provides operational efficiency but also creates inherent onchain transactions from the start, reinforcing Celo’s ecosystem as a showcase for blockchain-enabled solutions.

4. Regional Customization

Each region has its own trends, narratives, and needs. Celo’s strength will lie in its ability to adapt globally while resonating locally. Having clear regional objectives would help address:

  • What is this region’s specific contribution to Celo’s mission?
  • What metrics can demonstrate real impact in this region?
  • How does this region engage with end-users, builders, or enterprises in culturally relevant ways?

Some regions might be rich in developers, while others be better suited for institutional adoption, and others may focus on end-user solutions. Customizing each region’s strategy ensures they contribute meaningfully to Celo’s broader mission.

5. Early Revenue Models

The reliance on grants is a known issue. Exploring alternative revenue streams would bring more sustainability to the program:

  • Enterprise Onboarding and Consultancy: Offering Celo’s tools and stablecoins as tailored solutions to local businesses, based on the DAO’s skills.
  • Sponsorships and Events: Creating consistent funding pipelines with local partners and other blockchains, L2s and tech companies.
  • Merchandise: Expanding beyond basic items like stickers and t-shirts.
  • Validator Nodes and Community LPs: Generating financial support while involving the community.

These approaches bring tangible, real-world value and reduce dependency on grants from design. Only if provided with proper guidance, frameworks and funding to get there, as each region is valuable in their own unique way and with proper guidance and funding it is possible to go from from initiative driven teams to DAOs.

In conclusion, the focus should remain on building decentralized structures like DAOs. By providing streamlined tooling, defining clear objectives, and fostering revenue models, Regional DAOs can create immense value for the Celo ecosystem, aligning global impact with local relevance, while providing a basic MVD tooling to eliminate complexity and keep agility from the start.

3 Likes
10

Hello everyone,

My name is Don Ferreira, and I work on a native stablecoin initiative within the Celo ecosystem in Brazil. I also have four years of experience leading regional activities in other ecosystems. Observing the current model of Regional DAOs, I notice it is not very scalable from a budgetary standpoint. As Celo expands globally, and considering an average ticket size of US$20,000 per country (and there are 193 countries), we would need around US$3.86 million solely for short-term initiatives — an amount that does not seem sustainable.

A more viable approach might be to group efforts by region (Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Asia, Europe, and Oceania) and then decide which regions are priorities. This decision should align with the Celo Foundation, as it involves budget allocation and institutional resources. In my opinion, South America and Africa should receive more attention, given their high market potential and the comparatively lower dominance of competing blockchains, unlike more established regions such as North America or Europe.

Once we identify priority regions, the challenge is allocating resources for education, marketing, development, and finance. With L2, there’s a growing need for Development and DeFi. A hypothetical partnership with Tether in El Salvador could boost adoption, but neglecting Development/DeFi or lacking budget flexibility risks missing similarly impactful opportunities.

I see that Regional DAOs or Hubs typically focus on education, marketing, and public goods, while Development and DeFi demand more specific technical competencies. Hence, one proposal could be to invert the model and create thematic Hubs/DAOs (Marketing DAO, Dev DAO, Edu DAO, and DeFi DAO), each with its own budget, serving the regions or countries where these focus areas make the most sense. This avoids scope overlap, such as having “Celo Dev Hub — Brazil” and “Regional DAO — South America” both working on similar agendas.

Finally, if we want to maintain or improve the current model of Regional Hubs, I recommend first strengthening three essential pillars:

  1. Efficient and strategic resource distribution.
  2. Standardized reporting, with transparent management and finances.
  3. Coordinated strategies.

Below are six points I consider crucial for structuring any model — whether Regional Hubs or thematic DAOs — integrating the latest discussions in the Celo ecosystem.

1. Accountability Mechanisms and Clear Metrics

  • Global KPIs: Standardize key indicators (e.g., active wallets, stablecoin transaction volume, DeFi initiatives launched).
  • On-Chain Tools: Use POAPs or similar solutions to verify attendance at events and track wallet interactions.
  • Regular Reporting: Require monthly/quarterly updates from each Hub/DAO detailing results, challenges, and lessons learned.
  • Public Transparency: Make these reports available in open forums so the community can follow developments.

2. Approval and Audit Process

  • Project Approval: Proposals should be submitted to a Hubs/DAOs Council (or CeloPG) to ensure strategic and budgetary alignment.
  • Audit Committee: Create a specific group to verify whether funds are being used effectively and as intended.
  • Review Cycles: Allow both the community and the Celo Foundation to periodically reassess performance and reallocate resources as needed.

3. Simple and Iterative Governance Structure

  • Evolutionary Model: Start with less bureaucratic structures and grow as each Hub/DAO matures.
  • Collaborative Tools: Use Discourse, Snapshot, Tally, or Commonwealth for proposals, voting, and community feedback.
  • Clear Documentation: Keep a public repository updated, detailing governance processes and the responsibilities of each role.

4. Integration with the Superchain and External Partnerships

  • Strategic Connections: Collaborate with other Superchain or Ethereum ecosystem projects to boost Celo adoption in specific regions.
  • Cofunding: Seek startups, VCs, or even local governments interested in co-investing in the Hubs/DAOs, reducing sole dependency on Celo funds.
  • Global Alignment: Review priorities to ensure Celo’s “Home of Impact” narrative and financial inclusion mission remain strong in each partnership’s roadmap.

5. Formation of Local Leadership and Capacity Building

  • Capacity Building Program: Develop “champions” in each region or area (Marketing, Dev, DeFi), responsible for orchestrating community actions.
  • Training Cycle: Offer short courses on project planning, impact metrics, and on-chain community engagement tools.
  • Active Connections: Ensure these leaders regularly meet with the Celo Foundation and CeloPG for alignment and knowledge sharing.

6. Long-Term Vision and Sustainability

  • Revenue Models: Encourage each Hub/DAO to explore new funding sources, such as paid events, sponsorships, or products/services that generate usage fees.
  • Less Reliance on Grants: As Hubs/DAOs mature, motivate them to move toward self-sustainable governance, reducing exclusive dependency on Celo funds.
  • Consolidation and Optimization: Periodically review which Hubs/DAOs are truly creating value and reallocate resources to those with higher ROI or strategic importance.

These points aim to reconcile the desire for a global network of Regional Hubs/Daos with the need to address specific areas like education, marketing, development, and DeFi more effectively. Whether we choose to retain the current Regional Hubs model or adopt more thematic DAOs, implementing clear accountability mechanisms, approval/audit processes, lean governance, external integration, local leadership development, and sustainability is essential for Celo’s success in this Impact Era and as it transitions to L2.

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute and would emphasize that, above all, the focus should be on efficiency and transparency in resource allocation, aligning every initiative with Celo’s global mission.

Thank you!
— Don Ferreira

1 Like