Last night’s governance call felt like a classic BaFa’ BaFa’ moment (two cultures, both caring about Celo, colliding). I’ll write about it here on this thread as it relates to more than validators but to all of us on this bus. 
(These are key issues for the coming Celo Housekeeping Season)
Culture A: The Validators. (Celo Engineers)
For years they’ve been Celo’s backbone …. shipping upgrades, finding bugs, showing up in governance, and reinvesting block rewards into the ecosystem. Many joined (and stayed) on the understanding that the L1→L2 shift would not cut them off, but transition toward a decentralized sequencer. They believe running validators is a core public service for decentralization and for Celo’s mission.
Culture B: Celo-as-Business.
Others see validator expenses as a drag in a tight market. They’re focused on deals, grants, and keeping Celo attractive - some feel decentralized / “blockchain days” are behind us and the priority is business development and distribution.
What we heard clearly (and kindly) from both sides:
-
Everyone here holds CELO and wants Celo healthy.
-
The proposed validator cuts would not reduce total CELO minted/created; those funds would now be available to the CCF and grant programs (as questioned at the last Bus Station meeting) and spending like CICLOPS .. which (as discussed on the call) is spending roughly $3M per six months (~$16k USD per day). Much of this is reportedly under NDA, so the community can’t see recipients or amounts. Myself like many others feel that closed-door spending conflicts with Celo’s mission and ethos. (n.b. The next CICLOPS vote is in 2 months).
Constructive options we can explore (instead of blunt & budget-blind cuts):
-
Honor the L2 transition commitments: keep validators first-class until a decentralized sequencer is live and meeting public SLOs for a full quarter.
-
Channel validator talent toward services now funded elsewhere (parts of CICLOPS scope), with transparent tenders.
-
Explore “impact staking” paths (e.g., validating on Ethereum.. Lido-like services) that align security work with real-world outcomes.
-
Trim hype/giveaways, prioritize funding that drives verifiable usage, and publish clear budgets without NDAs wherever possible.
From Grassroots Economics:
People stake with our validator because they believe in the mission. We’ve invested in ops and reinvest rewards into liquidity pools that grow real transactions in communities we serve. Cutting validator seats without a transparent plan harms 
those communities first.
Next steps I humbly propose:
-
Publish the numbers: a simple budget sheet - what the CCF/CICLOPS spend is, and what changes would actually save (or just reallocate). Prepare for a full audit.
-
Stage-gated decentralization: commit to decentralized sequencer readiness SLOs (operators, inclusion, liveness, public dashboards) and keep validators whole until those are met.
-
Temperature check (Snapshot): let holders/delegates signal on a transparency-first package (budget clarity, SLOs, and validator role options) before any binding vote.
-
Open tenders: if we shift work from validators to programs, run transparent RFPs so validator teams can compete to deliver those services.
I’m grateful for the kindness and maturity in the room. Let’s honor both cultures, protect what we’ve built, and choose a path that keeps Celo credible, decentralized, and welcoming.
With care and resolve,
- Will @ Grassroots Economics