Celo Governance Guidelines

The most recent version of the Celo Governance Guidelines is version 0.1 and was ratified on February 3rd, 2024.

Current Celo Governance

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.

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 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.

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.

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 is intended to be carried out consistent with the Celo Governance Guidelines and the pursuit of the Celo Vision.

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.

Celo Governance Guardians Overview

The initial six 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.

The Celo Public Goods Stewards, a community-elected group of representatives from Celo Stakeholders, provide Accounting, Budgeting, and Strategy support to the Celo Community Treasury. 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.

Amendments

The procedures described in the Celo Governance Guidelines will go into effect as soon as the latest version has been accepted by Celo Governance.