Something felt off to me during yesterday’s call, and I think it’s worth naming directly.
The primary argument for cutting validator rewards in Reduce Elected Validator set from 110 to 55 has been to reduce selling pressure on CELO. But if these funds simply flow to the CCF, which can then allocate them to programs like CICLOPS, we haven’t reduced selling pressure at all. We’ve just redirected who receives and potentially sells those tokens.
This becomes more concerning when you consider:
- CCF’s financial integrity is already under scrutiny (see the CeloPG Season 1 Impact Report discussion)
- CICLOPS is reportedly spending ~$3M per six months (~$16k USD/day), with much of it under NDA and invisible to the community
So the proposal effectively moves funds from a transparent, on-chain group (validators who’ve been accountable for years) to programs with less visibility and existing trust questions.
If reducing sell pressure is genuinely the goal, shouldn’t we be asking harder questions about all major outflows, not just validator rewards? And if the goal is actually reallocation, let’s be honest about that and ensure the receiving programs meet a higher transparency bar first.
+1 to @WillRuddick call for publishing clear budget numbers before any binding vote. I would very much like us to move forward with an audit proposal for governance.