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.
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)
Draft the Cultural & COI Pact (one pager) → share on forum for comments.
Scope an Independent Audit (terms, timeline, budget, reviewer shortlist) → bring to a temperature-check vote.
Prototype the Dashboard (what data, how often, who updates) → post a mockup for feedback.
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.
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:
An independent audit of existing fund flows
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Audit everything, not just validators: full spend + impact review across CCF, CICLOPS, validators, grants - publish raw line items and methods; right-of-reply.
Shared ROI rubric: include usage, resiliency, equity, and verifiable public goods, not just token price or headcount.
Protect essentials: carve-out for mission-critical field ops while the audit runs; stage any cuts.
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.
(These are key issues for the coming Celo Housekeeping Season)
those communities first.