Thanks for this technical breakdown, Yomfana! It’s incredibly helpful for those of us who want to engage more deeply but find the mechanics opaque. I honestly need much more of this transparency.
I agree that it’s time to rethink how we frame governance … but perhaps not just in terms of voting thresholds or quorum math. What this conversation really reveals is a deeper tension between representation and responsibility.
Yes, the current system gives effective veto power to a few large holders. But instead of seeing this purely as a flaw, what if we viewed it as a call to deepen our understanding of governance as stewardship?
Large CELO holders … whether individuals, foundations, or DAOs … carry an outsized influence because they carry outsized risk and long-term commitments. That responsibility can’t just be reduced or redistributed by adjusting parameters. Governance isn’t only about voting … it’s about visible, accountable commitments.
This is where I believe Commitment Pooling could offer a powerful complement to the current system.
Rather than trying to “level the playing field” through forced redistribution or other means, we can design funding and governance processes that reward shared commitments. Imagine if a proposal … like building a wallet for stablecoins, mutual-credit, and real-world assets … could only unlock pooled CELO (perhaps seeded by a whale) when matched by developer time, validator support, and DAO adoption. That’s governance through co-stewardship, not just consensus math.
So yes, let’s explore parameter rebalancing. But let’s also evolve our models. If we treat Celo governance as a system of relational commitments, not just votes, we can invite participation that’s real, fair, and regenerative … without alienating those who’ve held this ecosystem from the beginning!!! 
Happy to collaborate on any work that carries this forward.