Riding the Celo Bus Together - An Urgent Invitation to Safe Dialogue and Real Repair

+1 to the Bus.

Hey Wil super nice to read this, and even nicer that you’re the one bringing it up.

While I don’t usually engage with the governance discussion on Celo, I’m not aware of the content of the conflict, but I feel it in the air.

I’ve been working around the Celo ecosystem since 2022, when I co-founded ReFi Spring with friends, and since then, I have contributed to different projects building on Celo (and even brought Blockchain na Escola to build on Celo, and that generated super nice numbers that the team currently leading the project already shared.

I’ve been following discussions by OGs about how to further promote efficiency (in all senses) within the ecosystem, but all discussions shared the same feature of happening under one silo, not a general and open discussion.

I share your vision that before accelerating (and I think the combo of MiniPay + Self + Mento will work as jet fuel for the ecosystem), we need to clear the air.

While I don’t know how to engage in the discussion, I’m fully available and willing to join the call to contribute as I can.

Again, thanks for the initiative!

3 Likes

Looking forward to joining the call!

7 Likes

getting started in 4 minutes.

Here is a 3 minutes good vibes video: https://youtu.be/GXES-pulbOU of Celo data viz from Kenya and Ukraine

here is the zoom link info.

Grassroots Economics is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Topic: Celo-Bus Station: Session #1
Time: Dec 11, 2025 06:00 PM Nairobi
Join Zoom Meeting

Meeting ID: 932 7723 6549


One tap mobile
+13602095623,93277236549# US
+13863475053,93277236549# US

Join instructions

Celo-Bus Station #1 - Call Summary & Next Steps

Thanks for showing up.
We spent 2 hours on Zoom. No one was named or doxxed. The tone was respectful, mature, and focused on Celo’s success. Celo appreciation: majority of participants started their shares with a deep appreciation for Celo and a desire to grow together and succeed.

What we heard (concerns surfaced)

  • Financial integrity: worries about possible embezzlement/misuse and the need to verify with facts.

  • Validator changes: fear that dropping validators could harm reliability, community investment, and trust.

  • Conflicts of interest: questions about cross-directorships, self-funding, and unclear roles.

  • Centralization & safety to speak: concern that power is concentrating and that raising issues might carry social or funding risk.

What we aligned on (direction of travel)

  • Independent audits: initiate a neutral review that can flag any past misuse and confirm clean practices going forward.

  • Clear cultural pact: publish simple standards (eg, disclose conflicts; no allocating to projects you own or receive from without recusal; right-of-reply; transparent comms).

  • Public accountability dashboard: show flows of funds (grants in/out), high-level metrics, and incident/post-mortem summaries—no sensitive data, just clarity.

  • Celo Season 2 pacing: consider focusing the next “season” first on housekeeping (Bus maintenance) before expanding new programs, so we fix pipes while keeping essential work running.

Immediate next steps (proposed)

  1. Draft the Cultural & COI Pact (one pager) → share on forum for comments.

  2. Scope an Independent Audit (terms, timeline, budget, reviewer shortlist) → bring to a temperature-check vote.

  3. Prototype the Dashboard (what data, how often, who updates) → post a mockup for feedback.

  4. Validator change impact note → collect inputs from validators/RPCs on possible effects before any binding vote.

Gratitude to everyone who showed up with care. Let’s keep the tone we set tonight: facts over labels, remedies over blame, and steady steps that make Celo stronger.

—–
On a personal note I want to move move Celo from a grant-and-gatekeeping culture to a reciprocity model: seed pooled commitments (cash, goods, services) that communities swap (borrow) under public rules (clear prices/indices, caps and circuit breakers , and auditable ledgers with simple grievance paths) so TVL increases and value circulates without favoritism, or rumor.

Instead of one-off distributions, fund endowment-like pools that keep working after programs end; require local stewardship , right-of-reply, and transparency dashboards showing inflows/outflows and redemptions; design forgiveness/fee waivers for the most vulnerable; and enable routing between RWA liquidity pools.

In short: rules over rulers, receipts over rumors, and enduring community credit that keeps neighbors whole.

N.b. I shared an important story close to my heart at the end of the session … It is from the humanitarian world and I think that we need to take it seriously. https://willruddick.substack.com/p/when-help-makes-enemies

7 Likes

Thank you @WillRuddick and everyone for showing up and discussing the urgent issue of financial integrity and best practices.

I strongly believe that one reason the Celo price is down is because of an increasing crisis of trust within and outside the community regarding how outward-facing programs are managed and funded.

I know that @mbarbosa and several others are working on important transparency dashboards to visualize past transaction and funding graphs. The preliminary data already raises uncomfortable questions, and I believe, once ready, their critical work will help us establish clear community standards and a cultural pact.

I agree that Celo Season 2 should focus on housekeeping and retrospective analysis before approving further funds from our depleting community treasury. Specifically, we need:

  1. An independent audit of existing fund flows
  2. Clear accountability frameworks before any new capital deployment

If supported by the Celo Foundation, I would strongly propose @WillRuddick and Grassroots Economics (GE) to lead the Celo Housekeeping effort for Season 2. I personally believe that GE has consistently demonstrated the highest standards of integrity in our ecosystem, making them ideal stewards for this critical work. I would also love to see support and funding for @mbarbosa and others’ important transparency infrastructure work.

Long term, I believe our ecosystem needs to move towards robust accountability infrastructure such as the CCLCN framework proposed here: Celo Cosmo-Local Credit Network - Season 1 Funding Proposal - #29 by WillRuddick

Let’s make sure our bus is driving again but also that we are trusting our drivers.

7 Likes

Thank you for your initiative Will!

It sets the path to the perfect display of Celo as the chain for integrity and public goods funding if we take the courage to dive as deep as needed on it as a solid community.

I make myself available to help on participating on the drafting of the pact or scoping of the audit as well as whatever else it may be needed. We are very much aligned in vision, love for Celo principles and paths forward.

I would like to make a case again to two important point discussed.

1 - Getting to the bottom of how everything works today in public rather than privately will only harm our competitiveness if we don’t deal with whatever changes are needed in a resolute way, as we have seen with other blockchains in our much short history.

2 - It is essential, due to how Celo was founded and is governed and funded, that the Celo Foundation goes beyond being aligned and supporting to movement to have a concrete and executive commitment to the needs we have agreed upon on our call.

Finally, I have to say in a personal level that I have felt so hopeful and proud of Celo as I didn’t feel for a long time for this movement to start, and I am commited to help in any way possible.

Let’s do it!

2 Likes

I’m encouraged by you all to have a next Celo Bus Station session (mid January? but am happy to iterate async on forum and discord) thanks @Phil and @ddd and everyone who has given feedback privately on the last session.

URGENT

An urgent point of discussion is happening today Celo Governance Call #81 | Dec 18th, 2025

I encourage as many people as possible to have their voice heard there. Please come. I’ll be there.

A lot of discussion on Celo budgeting and the need for clarity is coming up now (on forum and especially on Celo Discord) as there is a proposal to cut validators.

I am pushing for a clear public reveal of where funding goes at Celo so we can follow the Celo mission in integrity.

“Our mission is to build a regenerative digital economy that creates conditions of prosperity for all.”

4 Likes

I’ve missed it unfortunately. :frowning:

Next one I’ll be there and still fully committed to help on the transparency and gov update path.

2 Likes

Unfortunately couldn’t make it my current timezone. Where there any key takeaways?

1 Like

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. :oncoming_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. :oncoming_bus:

  • 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 :fire: those communities first.

Next steps I humbly propose:

  1. 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.

  2. Stage-gated decentralization: commit to decentralized sequencer readiness SLOs (operators, inclusion, liveness, public dashboards) and keep validators whole until those are met.

  3. Temperature check (Snapshot): let holders/delegates signal on a transparency-first package (budget clarity, SLOs, and validator role options) before any binding vote.

  4. 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
7 Likes

How would these funds be available directly to the CCF? Am I misunderstanding the technical structure here?

1 Like
  1. By manually calling release on the UnreleasedTreasury from the CCF.
  2. Changing the _communityRewardFraction to 100% (less carbon offset fund) through a smart contract upgrade.
6 Likes

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:

  1. CCF’s financial integrity is already under scrutiny (see the CeloPG Season 1 Impact Report discussion)
  2. 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.

8 Likes

Hello everyone,

A close friend referred me to this thread out of concern for the community treasury. I will be undertaking a pro bono top-level review of the community treasury for a few beneficiaries. My significant exposure to Celo, thanks to the excellent reward incentives offered by some protocols exclusively here, has given me a stake in the ecosystem. I believe we need to do everything to protect Celo, including getting rid of any non-aligned programs or actors. Community treasuries are always a sensitive issue on every chain, but we should not shy away from ensuring its health and integrity.

Looking forward to engaging with the community around this.

8 Likes

Would it be possible to “burn” the funds saved on any reduced validator rewards somehow, so they can’t be redirected to CCF?

(Sorry for the newb questions)

1 Like

I’d prefer saved funds were “burned” somehow (see above), but if not possible, funds presumably remain with the community fund to be governed by future governance proposals (e.g. not automatic spending).

With that said, 100% agree CCF overall spending must be reviewed in parallel, otherwise I’m just wasting my time with original proposal. My hope is validator spending cut proposal might provide some momentum for further cost reviews. It seems like most proposals centered around spending more and we need to cut spending/prioritize highes ROI imo.

2 Likes

Alex, I hear you on cutting spend and I respect the intent to create momentum. But ROI defined narrowly is subjective … and for a lot of us, your ROI = the end of programs and communities we care about. Many programs could be the catalyst (first on the fire) … If validator cuts become the catalyst, let’s make sure they don’t become collateral damage.

Concrete middle path I’d support:

  1. Audit everything, not just validators: full spend + impact review across CCF, CICLOPS, validators, grants - publish raw line items and methods; right-of-reply.

  2. Shared ROI rubric: include usage, resiliency, equity, and verifiable public goods, not just token price or headcount.

  3. Protect essentials: carve-out for mission-critical field ops while the audit runs; stage any cuts.

  4. Post-audit allocation: Snapshot temp check on where escrowed funds go (including “burn” as an option) with clear caps and RFPs.

If we do this, your push for discipline can land without wiping out high-leverage work. I’m in for a complete spending + impact audit across ALL of Celo. Validators, CICLOPS, CCF, everything.

Let move toward a proposal here asap.

We can’t chart a path forward in the dark. :green_heart: :oncoming_bus:

6 Likes

Hey Will,

Unfortunately, I couldn’t attend. Thanks for bringing up the points here.

The “audit everything” approach seems to be the middle ground that no one disagrees with.
It can be a solid base to start any other discussion.

I also like the idea of a shared ROI rubric.

Coming back here to say:

Great points @ddd

2 Likes

I want to get back on this thread after a few months of observation and working in the field with communities.

When I opened this conversation, my hope was to create a safe container for dialogue, repair, and shared accountability. I still want that and I still believe many people here care deeply about Celo.

At the same time, I feel the need to name something that has become increasingly important for us at Grassroots Economics Foundation, and for many of the communities we work alongside on the ground.

Celo has meant a lot to us because it pointed toward a deeper possibility for blockchain: not only payments, scale, or distribution, but actual decentralized governance connected to real-world communities, public goods, local economies, and regenerative coordination.

We invited communities, cooperatives, farmers, savings groups, builders, and public goods actors into this ecosystem because we believed that mission was real.

The recent strategic shifts have had a significant impact on us.

Technically, financially, and relationally. They affect the trust we have built with people who were told that this ecosystem stood for community, regeneration, and shared governance.

Celo has changed. It is no longer the same L1 many of us joined. The network is now an L2. Validators no longer play a consensus role. Sequencing appears centralized. Governance remains strongly shaped by CELO holders, large stakeholders, whales, core entities, and institutional coordination. Now, with Opera being positioned as a major network stakeholder through a very large CELO allocation, Celo’s direction seems increasingly tied to MiniPay distribution and related growth.

Maybe that is the right strategic move. Maybe this is what survival and scale require. Maybe I am missing important context.

I feel I need more clarity about what Celo is becoming. And i miss communications and actual conversations where the future can be explored.

  1. Is Celo still a community-governed regenerative economy?
  2. Is it a public goods network?
  3. Is it becoming primarily a strategic distribution and settlement layer, with community governance around the edges?
  4. Is it a token-holder network where “community” mainly means those with voting power?
  5. Is it still a mission-driven ecosystem where grassroots builders, validators, public goods actors, and local communities have meaningful voice?

For Grassroots Economics, we have put our name, reputation, and field relationships into this ecosystem. The opportunity to show what blockchain can do for real-world decentralized governance and community coordination is something we also invested in. I am searching for how all of this makes sense within the Celo ecosystem as it is now.

So I want to ask directly, while remaining open to correction:

  1. What kind of community is Celo now?
  2. Who is included in Celo governance in a meaningful way? And how? Is there any existsing meeting where things can be discussed and not just decisions taken?
  3. What real power do non-token-rich builders, validators, local communities, and public goods actors have?
  4. What accountability exists for large stakeholders, core entities, major treasury recipients, and ecosystem programs?
  5. What protections exist so that treasury decisions do not appear to move quickly for strategic insiders while smaller actors are asked to wait, report, compete, or absorb cuts?
  6. What is the credible path toward decentralizing the sequencer, or otherwise restoring meaningful decentralization?

If Celo is now becoming primarily a strategic network for MiniPay distribution and related growth, then perhaps that should be named clearly. And if Celo remains committed to being a regenerative, community-governed public goods ecosystem, then I believe we need stronger proof in the form of governance design, transparency, audits, conflict-of-interest rules, decentralization milestones, and real voice for those affected by decisions but not powerful within them.

I still want Celo to succeed. I still want repair. I still want the bus to move. But I also want us to be honest about who is helping choose the route, who is carrying the risk, who benefits from the journey, and who is being asked to trust the process from the back of the bus.

Please tell me where I am wrong. And guide me through these questions. :folded_hands:

Please help me understand what Celo is now, who it is accountable to, and what kind of community we are actually building.

:coffin: :hourglass_done:
:oncoming_bus: :love_letter:

5 Likes

Since the decision-makers have conveniently gone silent, it’s time to say what no one else wants to admit: Celo has changed, and the “ReFi Summer” era is dead. The “hippie” facade has been stripped away because they realized they actually need a business to survive.

The Pillars of a Failed Narrative:

  1. The Governance Myth: Celo was never a community-governed regenerative economy. It was a playground for the top tier to extract maximum value to fund their lifestyles while preaching “regeneration” to the masses.

  2. The Public Good Lie: It is NOT a public good network. The only true PG network died because that model is a business failure. Celo chose profit over its principles.

  3. The Current State: It’s basically just a hollowed-out shell that serves Minipay

  4. The “Yes” Men: Every suspicion you have about the pivot is correct.

  5. The Missing Value: There is nothing left for the average participant.

To answer the questions everyone is dodging:

  • What is Celo now? It’s just a service layer for MiniPay to extract value from Africa and third-world markets. That’s it.

  • Who is it for? The token holders. Period.

  • What’s left for the community? Not much.

  • What are the current benefits? To be frank: None.

  • What’s the plan to go back? There is no plan. There is zero intention to return to the original vision.

The MiniPay Time Bomb

Celo is betting the entire house on MiniPay, and it’s a losing hand. MiniPay will do exactly what Base did to OP: it will grow, it will become too big for its boots, and then it will find its own way out. MiniPay does not have Celo’s best interests at heart. They will choose themselves every single time.

The verdict: Stop living in the past. The Celo days are over. You’re not wrong for being skeptical—you’re just the only one who realized the timeline has already shifted.

2 Likes