[GIP 14.2] Increase Distribution on Celo Blockchain

Amendment: [GIP 14.2] Expansion of G$ UBI Distribution on Celo

GIP Amendment: [GIP 14] Activation of G$ UBI Distribution on Celo

Title: Increase UBI GoodDollar Protocol on Celo

Author: Bertrand Juglas

Status: Stage III

Track: Protocol

Created: June 30, 2022

TLDR: GIP 14.2 is a proposed amendment to GIP 14.1 and suggests to accelerate the rate of G$ UBI distribution on Celo, due to an increase in daily users on Celo, and a desire to facilitate a healthy UBI ecosystem that concentrates members and G$ liquidity. GoodDollar protocol works to facilitate a healthy ecosystem of peer-to-peer commerce. This is why it makes sense to concentrate activity in one core ecosystem.

This proposal suggests to update the UBI distribution to 90/10 and amend it from GIP 14.1 which proposed a 50/50 split between Fuse and Celo, based on the following parameters.

GIP 14.1 Multi-chain Distribution of the 50% of G$ Issued Designated for UBI Distribution:

  • Protocol V3 allocates 80% of the G$ issued every day are intended for UBI. G$ issued for UBI are divided on side chains. Celo and Fuse are current active side-chains where G$-verified users can claim G$ UBI.
  • Of the G$ issued for UBI, the current distribution of G$ is 50/50 between Celo and Fuse.
  • The rate of UBI distribution is controlled by the core Protocol contracts, where all upgrades will be executed by the Protocol Community Guardians.

Proposed Change: Immediate increase to 90% the rate of G$ UBI Issuance for Distribution on Celo

Multi-chain Distribution of the 80% of G$ Issued Designated for UBI Distribution:

  • 90% of G$ to be directed to the UBI Distribution Contract on Celo
  • 10% of G$ to be directed to the UBI Distribution Contract on Fuse

All GoodDollars distributed will continue to be divided by the number of daily active users per chain and users will be able to continue to claim on both chains on both GoodWallet and GoodDapp. The Fuse Staking Contract also sources G$ UBI on Fuse, which generates roughly 1M-1.4M G$ a week distributed on Fuse.

Motivation for Proposed Policy Change

The data of the rapid number of Daily Active Users on Celo Blockchain supports this proposed policy change:

  • The number of daily active users claiming on Celo has increased to over 80,000 monthly active users, and is increasing at 3x the rate of Fuse.

  • June’s distribution on Celo and on Fuse

    Fuse: G$ 1019

    Celo: G$ 957

This proposed policy change is designed to match G$ UBI distribution to the enthusiasm of the G$ community for moving to Celo, and the enthusiasm of the Celo ecosystem to welcome the GoodDollar community!


I like the proposal, I think that the adoption of gooddollar in the Celo Blockchain and the increase in claimants in Celo requires a readjustment between the distribution of Ubi between both networks.


For my part I do not agree with that change. My reasons: 1. Out of respect for Fuse, who was the one who gave life to the project and created his community, which he now claims in Celo 2. Because the difference between the claims is minimal 3. It is evident that no claim is made in Fuse due to ignorance of charging in two networks 4. The bad perception that the displacement of one network by another gives, if another network arrived, they would do the same to Celo. For my part I think they should evaluate it is a tutorial of the double claim. Highlight both networks equally and as a Project meet with each network and set the same rules of the game. even-tempered


With all due respect and consideration to the FUSE network, it seems that the paths taken by the network and the interests of the G$ community are increasingly diverging. The wealth of projects in the CELO ecosystem opens up opportunities for real use of the token beyond its use as a mere financial asset. I am not a specialist, just an apprentice and a person in love with the project and I think it is necessary to take a step further towards a more solid landing in CELO. I don’t know if Bertrand’s proposal is the right one, but he is a person I respect and trust. That is why I support his proposal.
Beyond this, I agree on the need to recognise all that FUSE, in one way or another, has contributed and continues to contribute. I repeat, I am not an expert and I cannot say how, but I am sure that there are formulas in which all parties feel recognised.

1 Like

I do not agree since the last consultation fuse gave 90/10 to 50/50 now why go back to 90/10 with celo the best thing is to keep the 50/50 parity you talk about a big growth in the celo network which is not that big only 10k more people claim celo and one of the reasons why it happens is that when you open your wallet the first network that comes out is the one of celo all the users that we invite now are from celo if we change fuse from first I guarantee you that those same 10k people that claim more celo would claim more fuse. I guarantee you that if we change to fuse first, those same 10 thousand people who claim more celo would claim more fuse, so the rules of the game are not fair and I know that many people do not claim in fuse but in the main network that appears first.

So tomorrow comes out another network X then we forget zeal because the new network there are more people? That in reality there are not more people if not that it is working in function so that it seems that way.

If the 50/50 parity was taken to be respected!


my opinion is that the acceptance that there is in Celo is bigger if compared to that of Fuse it is also a reason to consider to increase the distribution in Celo network

9 thousand people does not represent a greater number of people, the best thing is parity or that the amount of both networks increase but that their 50/50 be maintained


No, Please don’t go for 90 and 10, just maintain with 50/50, because that is the permissible, let user decide with freedom for claim on celo or fuse, the 50/50 distribution is fair enough,

1 Like

@Furcas @Alber105 @Mjorakzai
At the moment it doesn’t make sense, as it is hard for most users to claim twice. The goal for the GoodWallet should always be to make it simple and equitable for all users from all backgrounds to use crypto.

Even if in GoodWallet we highlight both networks the fact is that MORE wallets on Celo are going to integrate the claim button. Valora just announced it and did a demo at etchcc which is great news!
And with Celo pushing G$ we are going to see even MORE users claim on Celo.
Any user that wishes to use G$ on fuse can easily bridge it to from Celo to Fuse and vise versa.

As @voroperez mentioned Fuse has supported to project in the beginning but at the moment they have not expressed their wish to support the project further, as they are focusing on different markets and use cases.

All in all I agreee with Bertrand and I believe this will be the best route for the community, advanced users will always be able to use Fuse.


@sirpy I understand your words, but it is also not make sense to decrease the distribution on Fuse against on Celo network, almost 80 to 90% claiming on Fuse network every day, if they want the distribution truely fair then it should be 70 and 30% in my opanion, what if the user mostly claiming only celo then? What will be the decision anymore? Will they remove fuse network claiming in the future…?

Personally I don’t see specific importance to keep “claim” on more than one network unless that network actively supports the GoodDAO.
What does the protocol and the community gain from splitting the claim amount between networks?


I do not understand in what sense it is difficult to claim in both networks? It’s just one click to switch networks. I have not seen anything in publications regarding Fuse for months and I think that is the reason why Fuse felt displaced and also lacked interest. The thing about Valora… I will review it because I understand it is from Celo and she will clearly support and speak well of the network. Now the claimants are decreasing in both networks and that is a sign that the G$ team should do about it because the solution is not to change networks from time to time. It is my opinion without knowing the project in depth. I’m just a user.

And regarding the advantage of having a claim on two networks is having the possibility of accessing products or services on two platforms, freedom of choice and competition incentive. Thus, the end user (the claimant) has their own perception of opportunity, quality and offer. I think that’s why the bridge was placed, so that the user has that option. I am a very active user and every once in a while I change my G$ from Celo to Fuse never from Fuse to Celo. Have you ever measured those bridges in what percentage they are from network to network. Or can I as a user see that information?

For you it is simple, for most users it is not.
As you said you have the bridge that you can always use.
Bridge activity was mostly fuse->celo until we had the issue with liquidity. But since liquidity is better on Celo I assume it will go back.
Why are you bridging mostly to Fuse if I may ask?

It’s very easy, I counted the time with my girlfriend and it didn’t take more than 1 minute. A short on Youtube and on all the networks making the double claim would be good for people who find it difficult or forget. I use more fuse because Good Dollar showed me the network and it opened a very good window for me, Bridge, NFTs, Staking when I use it and even payments for work I have done, it has good rates for transfers and additional I see potential to the network. From my perspective G$ and Fuse were growing hand in hand. Artrific, Rango, Voltage among others I have used and in them my G$.

Hi all,

This proposal has gone dormant and I would like to chime in here, as I agree with and support @bert0x in the desire to reallocate the proportion of GoodDollars moving to Celo. My primary reasons are 1) dilution of the G$ UBI distribution and 2) where ecosystem support of the project is coming from and 3) growth potential. I would also like to clarify that this proposal does not affect the number of GoodDollars received by any individual member. All GoodDollar members will continue to get the same value of G$ according to the rules of the protocol

  1. G$ UBI Distribution - currently, the protocol is weakening the purchasing power experienced by any user by dividing it across 2 blockchain networks. Build a sustainable universal basic income was based upon straddling two utility approaches for a useful UBI: a) complementary currency approach, where G$ can be used as a complementary currency in community economies where human and material resources are there, but what is lacking is money & b) cash-out approach, where G$ have always been convertible to other currencies, irregardless of market cap. Either way, the current UBI distribution is diluted per user when split 50/50 across the network.

  2. Ecosystem support: Celo Foundation has put real money and resources in welcoming GoodDollar to Celo, where Fuse’s support has died off. First, the Celo Foundation has added 100,000s of DAI to the GoodDollar Reserve to seed liquidity on Celo, and committed resources to ensuring our successful deployment and launch. Celo ecosystem partners such as Climate Collective have funded the building on top of the GoodDollar protocol, which is an entirely new dapp for community organizations to use GoodDollar payment infrastructure to run custom impact deployments. Celo-based projects have proactively integrated G$ token into their dapps: Valora, Halofi, Masa and more… All of which have resulted in more things for users to do with their GoodDollars. Since completing the expansion in March, the Celo Foundation has created dozens of marketing, biz dev, and funding opportunities for GoodDollar.

  3. Growth potential: Celo’s transition to an L2 carves out its positioning as the social impact chain within the Ethereum ecosystem, and has made repeated financial, strategic, technological investments to become the emerging markets & social impact default chain for the entire Ethereum ecosystem. Fuse has no such stragegy.

As such, as a member of the community and a founding team member, I support Bertrand’s proposal. My perspective is to further select community feedback on concrete reasons why they are enjoying the UBI distribution on Fuse or how G$ is being used on Fuse, but then would advice the community to bring this to a vote on snapshot. All community members should be aware that Good Labs GoodWallet currently operates and subsidizes an interoperabilty bridge between Celo & Fuse, whose code is open sourced on the GoodDollar github.

The fact that the claimants in Celo are more than those in Fuse, for me is a valid reason to adjust the amounts to be distributed.

I understand that starting and spending most of the time in the Fuse network led us to learn to use the tools that There are in the Fuse network, however I also think that in the Celo network we have more ecosystem than in the Fuse network, many dapps focused on reaching less experienced people.
More synergy in general between several projects such as double, HaloFi, Good collective that will be launched on Celo, Valora and some more.

Also think that the bridge that will continue to operate between both networks can function as a tool for people who may not feel comfortable using Celo dapps, but newcomers will be able to explore with dapps within Celo made to be simple and friendly.

1 Like

Hi @bert0x!

Thanks for submitting this proposal. Since the protocol has expanded to Celo, we’ve been finding many opportunities to increase the utility of the token for the G$ community on Celo. Many projects on Celo have reached GoodLabs and the GoodDollar community to build partnerships, collaborations, and even new projects.

While the GoodWallet has a Microbridge which allows for claimers to move small amounts of G$ between Fuse<>Celo, it also has costs, both on GoodLabs to maintain the infrastructure and also on the end user to bridge their funds. The GoodWallet Microbridge is a liquidity pool operated and maintained by GoodLabs - which, as you all know, runs on a small budget with very limited technical resources, hence the downtime we’ve been seen in the past month. This situation is unlikely to change in the next year as we are focusing on expanding the protocol in a decentralized manner.

We need to structure the protocol in a way where people can benefit from it without depending on the GoodWallet Microbridge to use their funds, so rebalancing the distribution taking in consideration where people are most likely to use their funds in the next year is a very good long term approach.