Current Celo Governance Overview & Procedures

Governance
1

Introducing Updates to Celo Governance

Dear Celo Community,

In light of the recent updates to our Governance Framework, as outlined in the Celo Governance Guidelines and Public Goods Funding Strategy H1 2024, I believe it’s imperative to provide clarity and transparency regarding the new approach and procedures in our Governance Process. While this information is readily available on the Celo Public Goods HUB, I feel it’s important to share these updates directly with our community to ensure visibility and transparency. Below, you’ll find a comprehensive overview of the changes and the proper procedures:

Current Celo Governance Overview & Procedures

Governance Toolkit

The governance tools for Celo Governance are currently:

  • Celo Governance Contract: The on-chain voting contract for Celo Governance. This is also the address of the Celo Community Treasury.
  • Celo.Stake.id: A front-end interface for Celo Governance maintained by Staking Fund.
  • Celo Terminal: A desktop application allowing Celo chain interactions and governance participation.
  • StakedCelo dApp: An application that allows for liquid staking of Celo and voting on Governance proposals.
  • The Celo Forum: The platform for governance and community discussion.
  • Discord: For informal governance discussion and feedback.
  • Github: Governance guidelines and CGP proposals are tracked via Github.

Tools that are being evaluated or developed and can be included in a future version:

  • Celo Snapshot: A locked Celo snapshot strategy is being scoped out to allow votes to occur on Snapshot. Snapshot would first be used for Celo Public Goods Budget distribution.
  • Celo Station: A complete application for Celo delegation, governance, and bridging that will integrate the Delegate function added to Celo Governance Contracts.
  • Valora Voting UI: A mobile-friendly feature to lock Celo, delegate voting power, and vote on proposals to be included in the Valora Wallet is currently being scoped.

The Governance Toolkit will evolve with each version of Celo Governance Guidelines to make governance more resilient and effective.

Proposed Proposal Process

Celo makes decisions through governance proposals. A new proposal must be of the proposal type listed below and follow the voting process described in this document to be considered valid. Proposals are accepted or rejected using a voting process.

Valid Proposal Types

All V0.1 Governance Proposals must fall within one of the following categories to be considered acceptable.

Proposal Type Governance Platform Description Submission Requirements Quorum Approval Threshold
Celo Protocol Governance Celo Governance Contracts Celo Network decisions and Celo Protocol Improvements Deposit of 10,000 Locked Celo. Dynamic based on the current Celo Algorithm. Dynamic based on the current Celo Algorithm.
Smart Contract Governance Celo Governance Contracts On-chain smart contract changes Deposit of 10,000 Locked Celo. Dynamic based on the current Celo Algorithm. Dynamic based on the current Celo Algorithm.
Celo Community Treasury Governance Celo Governance Contracts Funding proposals that do not fall within a current Celo Public Good Budget or aim to request over $500,000 in value in a single proposal. Deposit of 10,000 Locked Celo. Dynamic based on the current Celo Algorithm. Dynamic based on the current Celo Algorithm.
Mento Governance Celo Governance Contracts Mento reserve and protocol decisions. To separate once, Mento will establish their own Governance system in 2024. Deposit of 10,000 Locked Celo. Dynamic based on the current Celo Algorithm. Dynamic based on the current Celo Algorithm.
Celo Public Goods Governance Celo Public Goods Snapshot Program selection within approved Celo Public Goods budgets. Minimum of 10,000 Locked Celo Balance 2.5M Celo 50%

Voting Process

All governance proposals go through a cycle of at least three weeks.

Feedback and Review Phase

Proposals must be posted in the Celo Forum for review by the Celo community. It is required to post the proposal as a new discussion thread in the appropriate category and to mark it with [DRAFT] in the title. Proposal authors are expected to be responsive to feedback.

A proposal needs to be up for discussion for at least 7 full days, during which responsiveness from the author is mandatory.

To proceed to the submission and voting phase at least two Governance Guardians or CPG Stewards (depends of the scope of the proposal) must post explicitly that the proposal fulfills the requirements to be able to move into the Voting Stage in the proposal thread on the Celo Forum. If a Governance Guardian signals readiness for a proposal to move to a vote, it does not endorse that proposal. It simply signifies that they verified the proposal is ready to move to a vote and follows the Governance Guidelines.

After a proposal has received the required approvals, the proposal author shall update the proposal thread title from [Draft] to [Final]. Authors shall also include a summary of incorporated feedback as a comment on their proposal thread so future reviewers can understand the proposal’s progress. If feedback was gathered outside of the Forum (e.g., on Discord), proposal authors should include relevant links.

:bangbang: If a proposal author does not get explicit approval or wants more time for feedback, they should continue to seek feedback from the community and submit an updated proposal.

Proposal Submission and Voting Phase

Once a proposal has been flagged as ready for submission, any account that matches the Submission Requirements can submit the proposal to Celo Governance following the below processes.

  • Celo Governance Contracts: When a proposal is submitted to the Celo Governance Contracts, it will follow the current voting process as indicated in the Governance Documentation.
  • Celo Public Goods Snapshot: When a proposal is submitted to the Celo Public Goods snapshot space, it will be up for a single-choice vote for five days. During this period, no changes can be made to the proposal. If a proposal is accepted, the proposer can request execution by the Celo Public Goods Multi-sig within 30 days. If no request is made within 30 days, the proposal will be considered abandoned and the proposal will be voided. ( :warning: Mechanism not available at the momment due to some issues with integration of Snapshot)

All decisions will be made using token-weighted voting based on the Locked Celo balances at the moment of Proposal submission. It is recommended, but optional, to submit a proposal on Wednesday to streamline votes.

Cool-off period for failed proposals

If a proposal is not accepted, a so-called cool-off or rest period for additional conversation and potential changes is started before the proposal can be resubmitted again.

  • If a proposal is rejected due to not reaching a quorum but having a majority of yes votes, the proposal is moved back to the discussion stage and may be submitted for a vote after waiting for 14 days.

  • If a proposal is rejected and has a majority of no votes, the proposal is moved back to the discussion stage and may be submitted for a vote after receiving approval from the Governance Guardians and waiting for 28 days.

Implementation and Administration

In all cases, Celo Governance represented in Celo Governance Guardians or CPG Stewards is intended to be carried out consistent with the Celo Governance Guidelines and the pursuit of the Celo Vision.

Celo Governance Guardians Overview

The Celo Governance Guardians, a group of community-elected individuals, provide support and oversight to the Celo Governance process. This support includes:

  • Ensuring proposals follow the Celo Governance Guidelines.
  • Supporting proposers with aligning their proposals to the guidelines.
  • Removal and flagging of proposals that reasonably appear to be fraudulent or spam-oriented.
  • Verifying proposals that are ready to move toward a vote.
  • Hosting Celo Governance calls to discuss proposals and Governance process improvements.
  • Monitoring of votes, voting power, the votable token supply, and voting periods to determine whether quorums and approval thresholds are met or accurately reflected.

The initial Celo Governance Guardians are proposed because they each play a role as Celo Governance Proposal editor, actively participate in the Governance Process, or have a proven background in supporting on-chain Governance. In the next six months, the Celo Public Goods Stewards will create guidelines for electing new Guardians in potential future Governance Cycles.

  • Guardian 1: Eric Nakagawa - Twitter Active CGP editor of Celo Governance. Plays an active role in Celo Governance and community operations.
  • Guardian 2: Juan Giraldo - Twitter Active CGP editor of Celo Governance. Plays an active role in Celo Governance and community operations.
  • Guardian 3: Wade Abel - Twitter Active CGP editor of Celo Governance. Plays an active role in Celo Governance and community operations.
  • Guardian 4: Lorenzo Goldoni - Twitter Active CGP editor of Celo Governance. Plays an active role in Celo Governance and community operations.
  • Guardian 5: Will Kraft - GitHub Active CGP editor of Celo Governance. Plays an active role in Celo Governance and community operations.
  • Guardian 6: Ruben Russel - Twitter Experienced DAO governor with a background in social sciences.

Celo Public Goods Stewards Overview

The Celo Public Good Stewards (CPG Stewards in short), are a set of Celo contributors and Public Goods experts that streamline the Public Goods funding process by supporting with curation, communication, accounting and review of CPG applications. This support includes:

  • Keeping an up-to-date overview of the Celo Community Treasury resources. Providing recommendations on Celo Community Treasury budget allocation strategies.
  • Streamlining communication and coordination between teams funded by the Community Treasury.
  • Supporting the management and allocation of Celo Public Goods budgets.

The initial Celo Public Goods Stewards are proposed because they each provided input in the Celo Public Goods proposal and played significant roles in the Celo community over the past year. In the next six months, the Celo Public Goods Stewards will create guidelines for electing new Stewards in potential future Public Goods Cycles.

  • Program Lead and Steward: Luuk Weber - Twitter
    Founder of Kolektivo Labs and Lead of Celo Europe DAO S0. Building DAOs since 2018, and active in the Celo ecosystem since 2020.

    • Steward: Monty Bryant - Twitter
      Founder of ReFiDAO, the largest active ReFi network. Coordinated multiple Gitcoin rounds as part of ReFiDAO and supported Celo since 2021.
    • Steward: Daniel Olarte - Twitter
      OG Celo Contributor and current DevRel at Celo. Has deep involvement in the Celo ecosystem and is involved in the development of Celo Station.
    • Steward: Juan Giraldo - Twitter
       Active CGP editor of Celo Governance and Co-Founder of multiple ReFi initiatives, including ReFiMedelin and Celo Colombia. Plays an active role in Celo Governance and community operations.
    • Steward: Sophia Dew - Twitter
      Former contributor to Gitcoin and engineer at Public Goods Network. Has a deep technical understanding and good relationship in the OP Stack ecosystem and varios Public Goods initiatives.

In addition to the active stewards who will provide hands-on support to the operations of Celo Public Goods, four Advisory Stewards are elected who provide multisig oversight and strategic input.

  • Advisory Steward: Pedro Oliveira - Twitter
    Founder of Talent Protocol. Serial entrepreneur who has actively built and supported Celo’s growth since launching the initial Talent Protocol on Celo in 2021.
  • Advisory Steward: Aaron Boyd - Twitter
     Co-founder of Prezenti. Software engineer, start-up founder, and grumpy old man actually reading the content of governance proposals in the forum.
  • Advisory Steward: Marco Barbosa - Twitter
     Co-founder of Impact Market and Celo Europe DAO. Actively developing and promoting Celo for multiple years. Operates as a Validator and is dedicated to building successful Public Goods, starting with Impact Market.
  • Advisory Steward: Maya Brown - Twitter
     COO of Prezenti and CGP editor. Decades of experience in the impact program and portfolio management.

Some links with info related:

5 Likes
2

Thanks for posting this Juan!

I’d like to make a suggestion, in the event that a proposal meets or exceeds quorum, but if it is not approved in time, then they should be able to re-submit as soon as they are able. This would happen in a rare situations when approvers are unable to approve in the 72 hour window following a referendum vote.

As for the cooling off periods, I think this is a fair request to allow both the proposer enough time to modify and update their proposals before submitting and the community time to prepare again for a future vote. And prevent proposals being spammed to the community.

I also think a cool-off period being introduced will motivate proposers to line up their community support through sentiment checks in Forum and outreach to wider voting body.

4 Likes