I have a confusion that I felt important to raise, since I think it’s a tension that might seem subtle but has important, systemic implications. This mainly has to do with CGP [0014] and future similar CGPs, within the context of CGP [0017] as an ‘Activation of the Celo Community Fund’.
The concrete example at-hand for this right now is CGP [0014] for cUSD Rewards.
If CGP [0017] were comprehensively activating the Celo community fund, then logically speaking CGP [0014] for cUSD/CELO rewards would theoretically be passed as a Proposal to the stewarding group. These would be the stewards being proposed in CGP [0017].
Obviously this isn’t the case, and it’s also not quite clear in fact whether it should be at all or not.
Meanwhile, as process currently stands with regard to governance, the mechanism by which a Proposal for Community Fund spend would be approved is simply a CGP itself.
This is confusing from multiple standpoints, notably that of community participants whether by way of voting, proposing, building, advocating, etc.
What also seems to be important would be to correctly refer to CGP [0017] simply and solely as a complementary grants program, perhaps amongst various efforts, and these would be with specific elements and goals as elaborated by the steward team. Analogously I can think of Uniswap here as an example.
Right now, the feeling I get is that at least 2 main problems are:
-
CGP [0017] can lead the community to believe that the mechanism for any of their Proposals to receive funding from the community fund is via this initiative (seemingly false, per current governance), and
-
CGP [0014] can lead the community to believe that cLabs can utilize its own levers of power and influence – whether hard or soft, and despite all pure and rational intentions – to siphon community funds into company priorities (in this case namely Valora).
It is of course in the interest of the entire Celo community for cLabs to garner support, buy-in, participation, and approval; it’s less clear if on-chain public funds are the correct source pool for doing so. Regardless, per the mechanism of governance for funding already mentioned above, this is theoretically open to all community participants and/or entities to do the same and follow suit.
It would be great to get better clarity on how more folks feel about these points.
@aslawson @jbsibille @emily @Patrick @deepak @Dee @nambrot @asa @tim @Yaz