Score Management Committee - 6 Month Extension and Continued Funding

Governance Governance Proposals
,
1

Proposal: Score Management Committee - 6 Month Extension and Continued Funding

  • Status: DRAFT
  • Receiver Entity: The Score Management Committee Multisig
  • Title: Score Management Committee - Extension of Operations and Funding Request for Second Term (H1 2026)
  • Author(s): @swiftstaking, @kamikazechaser, @thylacine, @clemens, @dee
  • Type of Request: Score Management Committee Operations Extension
  • Funding Request: 60,000 cUSD

Overview

This proposal seeks to extend the Score Management Committee’s operations for an additional 6-month period (October - March 2026) and requests funding to continue the critical work of maintaining validator scores and community RPC infrastructure on the Celo L2 network.

The Score Management Committee was established as part of the Great Celo Halvening Parameters proposal (CGP-169) and has been successfully operating since the hard fork. Following the initial term and the successful extension with expanded committee membership, we now propose continuation of these essential services with business-as-usual operations plus targeted improvements.

This proposal represents the continuation of proven, high-quality infrastructure management that has demonstrated consistent reliability and community value over the almost 30 weeks of operation.

Proposal Description

The Score Management Committee has completed approximately 30 weeks of successful operation, maintaining critical infrastructure for the Celo validator ecosystem. This proposal requests funding to continue operations for the next 6-month period with the current five-member committee structure.

Continuation of Core Services:

  • Weekly score maintenance for all validators with timely reporting
  • Operation of 5 separate backend monitoring instances
  • Maintenance of community RPC infrastructure and load-balanced endpoints
  • Transparent weekly reporting and dispute resolution
  • Public code repository maintenance
  • Execution of slashing for non-compliant validators when required

Planned Improvements detailed in follow-up proposal:

  • Continued development toward full automation of score-keeping software
  • Release of revised rulebook within 3 weeks of approval
  • Core smart contract governance proposal with updated slashing penalties
  • Enhanced monitoring and reporting capabilities
  • Improving epoch change reliability

Rationale

Proven Track Record

Over the first operational term (~30 weeks), the Score Management Committee has demonstrated:

  1. Reliable Operations: Maintained scores for all validators consistently, with timely weekly updates as described in the original proposal

  2. Adaptive Rule Improvements: Updated and re-communicated score rules to ensure fairness and accuracy:

    • Modified downtime counting to use elapsed time rather than uptime, preventing unfair penalization of partially elected validators
    • Added “isSyncing” JSON RPC check to identify nodes unable to serve transactions
    • Implemented 30-minute out-of-sync rule for marking nodes as “down” to maintain network quality
    • Provided visual updates on Vido for transparency

  3. Security Enforcement: Successfully tested and executed slashing for the first time on L2 after smart contract upgrades, removing at least one group that never configured RPC

  4. Infrastructure Maintenance: Maintained 5 separate backend process instances with code publicly committed to repository, including weekly score query scripts

  5. Community Service: Maintained community RPC website and load-balanced endpoint for ecosystem benefit

  6. Collaboration: Continued discussions with Marek and cLabs team

  7. Dispute Resolution: Handled community concerns professionally with only a single dispute from Refi Colombia (a reduction request with no actual error in scoring)

Continued Need

The validator scoring and RPC monitoring system remains essential for:

  • Maintaining network quality and reliability
  • Ensuring fair reward distribution based on performance
  • Providing transparent accountability for validators
  • Supporting the broader Celo L2 ecosystem infrastructure

The committee’s work directly supports network health and provides critical infrastructure that enables proper validator incentive alignment.

Proposed Changes

Transaction 1: Funding Transfer to Score Management Committee Multisig

Description: Transfer funds (60,000 cUSD) to the existing Score Management Committee multisig wallet for 6-month operational continuation

Destination: 0x765DE816845861e75A25fCA122bb6898B8B1282a (cUSD contract)

Function: approve(address spender, uint256 value)

Arguments:

  • spender: 0x68ce71d4CECA3003701ca6844D9a345925407455 (Score Management Committee Multisig)
  • value: 60000000000000000000000 (60,000 cUSD)

Value: 0

Budget Breakdown

Committee Compensation:

  • 5 committee members × $2,000/month × 6 months = $60,000 cUSD

Budget Allocation:

  • Monthly operational expenses per member: $2,000 cUSD
  • Infrastructure and monitoring costs: Included in member compensation
  • Total 6-month budget: 60,000 cUSD

This maintains the established compensation structure from the original proposal, ensuring continuity and fair compensation for the committee’s ongoing responsibilities.

Deliverables and Timeline

Ongoing Deliverables (Weekly)

  • Weekly validator score reports published to Celo Forum
  • Score updates executed via multisig
  • 24-hour dispute period management
  • Uptime monitoring and data collection

Near-term Deliverables (First 3 Weeks)

  • Revised rulebook release with clarified scoring criteria
  • Governance proposal for updated slashing penalties
  • Smart contract updates (if approved via separate governance process)

Medium-term Deliverables (6 Month Period)

  • Continued automation development for score-keeping software
  • Regular infrastructure maintenance and updates
  • Community engagement and support

Reporting

  • Weekly public score reports on Celo Forum
  • End-of-term summary report detailing achievements and metrics

Committee Composition

The Score Management Committee consists of the following members (as established in previous proposals):

Current Members:

  1. @thylacine
  2. @clemens
  3. @dee
  4. @swiftstaking
  5. @kamikazechaser

Multisig Details:

Open Source Infrastructure Contributions

The Score Management Committee supports a diverse set of open-source tools maintained under the Celo Community GitHub organization. These tools provide transparent, decentralized, and verifiable infrastructure for validator uptime tracking and RPC access:

  1. celo-community/rpc-uptime-data
    The default open-source backend for validator uptime tracking, built on the Vido monitoring tool by Atalma.

    • Provides REST API, Redis caching, and MySQL database for uptime and performance metrics of Celo Mainnet and Baklava RPC endpoints
    • Serves as the main backend data source for community dashboards, including Vido
    • Operates across multiple instances, duplicated by committee members to ensure redundancy and multiple independent data sources

  2. celo-community/neptune
    A completely independent uptime tracking and performance visualization tool developed and operated by one committee member.

    • Offers an alternative approach to uptime analytics separate from the Score Management Committee’s core uptime backend
    • Provides community-driven monitoring and transparency, enabling validators and developers to independently review network health

  3. celo-community/rpc-proxy
    An open-source RPC Gateway Proxy enhancing reliability, decentralization, and performance of RPC access.

    • Built on Optimism’s proxyd dependency, supports high-throughput request routing with load balancing across community RPC nodes
    • Deployed via Docker Compose for ease of use and maintenance by validators and community members
    • Automated updates of elected RPC servers on the proxyd backend are currently in testing

Together, these projects reflect the committee’s commitment to open infrastructure, resiliency, and community participation, minimizing dependency on any single uptime solution and enhancing the robustness of Celo’s validator monitoring ecosystem.

Verification

Voters can verify this proposal by:

  1. Reviewing Past Performance:

    • Examining 30+ weeks of weekly score reports on Celo Forum
    • Confirming consistent, timely operations

  2. Checking Committee Infrastructure:

  3. Confirming Previous Proposals:

  4. Validating Multisig:

Risks and Mitigation

Identified Risks

  1. Committee Member Availability: Risk that committee members become unavailable during the term

    • Mitigation: Five-member structure provides redundancy; multisig can operate with subset (3/5) of signers

  2. Technical Infrastructure Changes: Potential L2 protocol changes affecting monitoring requirements

    • Mitigation: Committee has demonstrated adaptability with multiple rule updates during first term

  3. Automation Implementation Delays: Development toward automation may take longer than anticipated

    • Mitigation: Manual processes remain operational; automation is enhancement, not requirement

  4. Budget Sufficiency: Fixed cUSD amount may be affected by operational cost changes

    • Mitigation: Compensation structure proven adequate during first term; infrastructure costs manageable

Risk Management Approach

  • Maintain transparent weekly communication with community
  • Continue proven operational procedures while implementing improvements
  • Keep code and processes publicly documented
  • Engage with cLabs and community on any protocol changes

Future Work and Improvements

The committee proposes the following improvements during the second term:

  1. Automation Development:

    • Continue development on existing score-keeping software toward full automation
    • Reduce manual intervention requirements
    • Improve reliability and consistency

  2. Governance Updates:

    • Release revised rulebook within 3 weeks with updated scoring criteria
    • Submit core smart contract governance proposal with refined slashing penalties
    • Incorporate learnings from first 30 weeks of operations

  3. Community Engagement:

    • Continue transparent weekly reporting
    • Maintain responsive dispute resolution process
    • Provide regular updates on automation progress

Success Metrics

The committee will measure success through:

  • Operational Metrics:

    • 100% on-time weekly score updates (continued)
    • <24 hour dispute resolution response time

    • 99% uptime for monitoring infrastructure

  • Development Metrics:

    • Rulebook revision published within 3 weeks
    • Smart contract proposal submitted within 3 weeks
    • Measurable progress toward automation (quarterly updates)

  • Community Metrics:

    • Dispute volume and resolution satisfaction
    • Community feedback on transparency and communication
    • Validator engagement with scoring system

Useful Links

Appendix: Technical Implementation Details

Monitoring Infrastructure

The committee operates:

  • 5 independent backend monitoring instances for redundancy
  • Custom software based on Vido by Atalma
  • Automated uptime tracking with “isSyncing” detection
  • 30-minute sync lag detection for node quality
  • Weekly aggregation and scoring calculations

Scoring Methodology

Current scoring rules (subject to revision in updated rulebook):

RPC Uptime Score Action
80% - 100% 1.00 Full rewards
60% - 79% 0.80 Reduced rewards
40% - 59% 0.60 Reduced rewards
20% - 39% 0.40 Reduced rewards
0% - 19% 0.00 Slash eligible

Workflow Process

  1. Monitoring: Continuous uptime tracking via 5 backend instances
  2. Aggregation: Weekly score calculation based on 7-day performance
  3. Reporting: Sunday publication of score changes on Forum
  4. Dispute Period: 24-hour community challenge period
  5. Execution: Multisig transaction to update on-chain scores
  6. Documentation: Public record of all actions and decisions

This proposal is submitted for community consideration and feedback. The committee welcomes questions, suggestions, and discussion during the review period.

EDIT1: Added section Open Source Infrastructure Contributions

5 Likes