Request for Public CELOccelerate Buyback Address(es) for On-Chain Verification

Protocol
1

Hi all,
First, sincere thanks to @marek, the cLabs team, and the broader community for designing and passing CELOccelerate. The mechanism — routing net sequencer revenue and stablecoin gas fees into open market CELO purchases for the Community Fund — is one of the most thoughtful tokenomics frameworks in any L2 today. The 97% governance approval reflects how strongly the community supports the direction.
I’m writing to respectfully request greater transparency around the execution layer of the mechanism.
Specifically, I’d love to see the following published in a centralized, easy-to-reference location (ideally pinned in the forum or added to the official docs):

  1. The on-chain address or addresses receiving CELO from the open market buyback transactions
  2. The on-chain address or addresses where the Community Fund accumulates these tokens
  3. A regular cadence of buyback execution reports — even monthly would be excellent — showing total network revenue generated, amount converted to CELO purchases, and amount deposited to the Community Fund
  4. Where applicable, the swap routing or DEX addresses being used for the open market purchases
    The reason this matters: CELOccelerate’s core value proposition is the mechanical conversion of network usage into CELO demand. Daily fee revenue is publicly visible on dashboards like Growthepie, but the chain of custody from “fee generated” to “CELO purchased on open market” to “deposited in Community Fund” is not currently traceable by retail community members through public on-chain analysis.
    Publishing verifiable addresses would meaningfully strengthen the thesis in several ways:
    It would convert “the mechanism is working as designed” from a statement community members trust to a fact community members can independently verify.
    It would build institutional credibility ahead of potential Grayscale trust filing decisions and broader institutional inflows — institutions specifically look for verifiable on-chain transparency when evaluating tokens.
    It would empower community members to monitor execution and raise concerns or suggestions through governance if buyback rates diverge from expected ranges based on network revenue.
    It would set a strong standard for transparency that distinguishes Celo from other protocols where buyback mechanisms exist on paper but cannot be independently verified by token holders.
    This isn’t intended to imply any concerns about the mechanism’s execution. The team has earned significant trust through years of building, the 1.749M CELO retroactive burn, and the consistent forum engagement. This request is about making something already excellent even better by adding the transparency layer that turns a great mechanism into a verifiable, institutional-grade tokenomics framework.
    Thanks for considering, and looking forward to any clarification the team can provide.
7 Likes
2

I strongly agree. Everyone should be able to verify when, where, and how the mechanism is operating.

There also needs to be a clear policy regarding the handling of buybacked tokens.
To be honest, if the accumulated tokens are not burned but instead reinvested, it ultimately just means the purchased tokens are redistributed and likely sold back into the market by many participants. I don’t really see the meaning of that, and I’m not sure it can truly be called a “buyback.”

In addition, the proposal to burn the tokens accumulated over the past year was ultimately rejected. So what happens to those tokens now? There should at least be periodic re-votes or some other governance process to decide how they will be handled. But right now, it doesn’t seem clear who is responsible for opening such votes, when they should happen, or how frequently they are supposed to occur.

1 Like