Save Tezos Africa — Funding through an O Upgrade Proposal Amendment

Building on the last 2 historic efforts to decentralize funding for Tezos ecosystem initiatives using the protocol invoice feature to do so (via PtMumbaiv, PtNairob7) we present this proposal for a specific cause and an urgent need. And just like PtMumbaiv, PtNairob7, this proposal will not alter the stock proposal code that the core development firms will provide, but merely add to it.


Tezos Africa Foundation—a critical organization to the Tezos global ecosystem—dedicated to promoting the Tezos platform across Africa, is currently facing funding challenges after its grant was not renewed/approved from the Tezos Foundation due to budget cuts. The amount was for $100,000. To address this issue, we propose to amend the upcoming Tezos blockchain protocol upgrade, ‘O’ (to be named) upgrade, which would allocate a subsidy of 100,000 XTZ to the Foundation. This solution aims to secure the future of Tezos adoption and education in Africa.

About Tezos Africa Foundation

Formed by a group of enthusiasts, innovators, and software developers, Tezos Africa Foundation’s primary objective is to promote the adoption of the Tezos blockchain in the region through various initiatives delivered in both English and French:

  1. Education: The Foundation conducts development training events to teach participants about Tezos smart contract development frameworks, such as SmartPy, Ligo, and Truffle.
  2. Events: Tezos Africa Foundation organizes meetups and events at educational institutions, promoting knowledge about blockchain technology and the Tezos platform.
  3. Building bridges with communities: The Foundation’s chapter leads engage with local tech communities during tech events, discussing the potential adoption and application of the Tezos blockchain to solve community problems.
  4. Setting up Bakers: Foundation chapters contribute to securing the Tezos blockchain and participate in the network by establishing bakers, which are crucial for the network’s security and functionality.
  5. Hackathon/Fellowships: Tezos Africa Foundation organizes hackathons to encourage innovation and support individuals and teams in developing projects on the Tezos blockchain.

Member Chapters

Tezos Africa Foundation supports the growth of Tezos communities across various African nations through their member chapters including:

  1. Tezos Cameroon
  2. Tezos Ghana
  3. Tezos Nigeria
  4. Tezos Senegal
  5. Tezos Tunisia
  6. Tezos Togo
  7. Tezos Burkina Faso
  8. Tezos Zimbabwe
  9. Tezos Kenya
  10. Tezos Ivory Coast
  11. Tezos Uganda

The Funding Solution: Protocol Upgrade

The proposed amendment to the upcoming O protocol upgrade aims to provide Tezos Africa Foundation with the necessary funding to continue their mission.

If the proposed amendment is approved and succeeds through stages ultimately through Adoption and the funds are issued, the funds will be securely controlled by a multisig (multi-signature) contract, which has already been in service for Tezos Africa for nearly a year. The multisig contract ensures that all actions regarding the use of funds must be approved by Tezos Africa Foundation, adding an additional layer of security and accountability.

The keyholders of this 2-of-2 full consensus multisig, to which both parties must sign for funds to be transferred are the same stewards of Tezos Africa that have had a strong track record of trust and accountability:

Chanel ‘Nelly’ Chatau-Diop
Vicentia Asilevi


The proposed amendment to allocate 100,000 XTZ to Tezos Africa Foundation through the O protocol upgrade is essential for securing the Foundation's future and furthering its mission to promote the Tezos platform and blockchain technology in Africa. By addressing funding challenges and ensuring the continuation of education, events, community building, setting up bakers, and supporting hackathons and fellowships, this timely funding solution will enable Tezos Africa Foundation to further bridge the blockchain gap in Africa and foster growth and adoption of the Tezos platform across the continent and within its member chapters.

Tezos Africa Foundation

1 Like

On-chain Protocol invocement was designed to fund technical amendments (as per white paper), which are currently funded by Tezos Foundation through several teams such Nomadic Labs.

On-chain protocol invoicement should not be used for community funding cause it adds consensus complexity to the process and adds inflation to the xtz token.

There are many other ways to fund these initiatiaves like donations, promote delegations to that african bakers, Tezos community DAOs, community programs, etc.

I have myself delegated a critical amount of xtz to a spanish baker (Tezos Andalucia) to ensure it can reach the minimum staking amount and keep its educational activity. I also note the spanish users/bakers community have not received ever funding for such purpouses.

Putting everything that Tezos Africa is trying to do under “community” alone feels pretty arbitrary. Why wouldn’t we all want more reliable Tezos infrastructure for our African communities? ~75K USD is pocket change for an initiative like this. Also, injecting an additional 100K tez to the overall supply would change the current inflation rate from 4.63% to 4.6300000010247%. It’s an absurdly small amount for a potentially very real and very tangible benefit to the Tezos ecosystems.

1 Like

Can you tell me what if anything any of these communities have actually done?

Let’s start with Chanel Nelly Chatau-Diop. According to old bi-annual reports she got a grant to develop her app only to never do anything with it besides self gain. Has she ever even spoken about Tezos besides being on a tezos related podcast? I’ll give you a hint (NO). So tell me, why do we want to give them xtz again?

What have they done in 5 years? What like a total of 4 meetups? What about starting bakeries? Well, that was another massive failure upon failure even after the community started delegating xtz to them.

This is a half brained idea with 0 follow through and thought.

1 Like

On-chain invoicement procedure is designed for funding technical amendmentes, it is stated like this in the white paper.

To fund a social grant throught the on-chain mechanism can set up a very dangerous precedent… in times Tezos is trying to reduce its protocol inflation through Adaptative Inflation.

If Tezos Africa is doing a so great job ( really? ), Tezos Foundation or Tezos Common Foundation should fund them as it is their mission, you can send them an email… I can also tell you that other regional communities have not ever been funded.

As a baker who has upvoted the previous modified protocol upgrades to allocate funding for DAOs I think this the best use of an allocation of 100K tez that I have seen yet. Africa one of the most underrepresented communities in this space and also stands to gain the most from many of the properties a platform like Tezos offers. The sum is trivial in the grand scheme of things, it demonstrates the power of protocol based funding and Tezos’ governance model, and Africa is a region where the allocated funding will likely go the furtherest.

Considering how the last two attempts went I think a public support campaign needs to begin now if you want any chance of success in this. I think it would be really useful to see the leadership of Tezos Africa step forward and explain their vision for the funding in publics spaces like twitter to get traction and awareness around this idea.

You certainly have my upvote on such a proposal. I think if there is a serious awareness campaign around this over the next two weeks as Protocol O is waiting for release, this gives it the best chance for success. For those who are skeptical, I would like you to consider the real boundaries and precedents that are being perused here. The PR alone for such a newsworthy achievement is likely worth the ~$70K of allocated funds, let alone the real value it could contribute to an underrepresented community.

  • Why 100k xtz? Why is not 10k enough? Why not better 1 million? Or 1 billion next time? Or whatever people want to propose and majority vote Yay according to mutual benefit of voters? This proposal has not presented any serious budget… they are asking money to all of us (inflation is decreasing the value of our savings), but they do not commit in any sense with NOTHING. That’s the reason on-chain procedure is designed for technical amendments, cause you can audit and verify in advance a piece of code but not the intentions of a community effort…

  • Why Tezos Africa yes, and Tezos LATAM not? Or Tezos Portuguese speaking regions? Or Tezos Arab regions? Or Tezos Ukraine that has suffered a war? Or whatsoever? Just because a random influencer has spoken laud about it?

  • According which future and past parameters we can evaluate the former performance of Tezos Africa to make a serious and consistent decision?

I will vote Nay with my private rolls to this and change my delegation if my main baker p2p votes Yay.

Please, don’t mess with the on-chain voting procedure and our savings value; fund your initiatives through foundations or your own funds. I am willing to delegate some xtz to african bakers if so.

Could you please quote the section of the white paper stating this?

1 Like

It is logical to assume that if whitepaper states ONLY about protocol amendments, to use the procedure to fund other stuff is tricky and not according with its original aim.

When I proposed to vote the Tezos Foundation president through the on-chain procedure, I was replied in this exact way.

Not to mention the implications that Tezos protocol funding directly things like this, I really do not know but seeing how SEC is acting against some other coins maybe this is not the best time to start messing with such experiments…

The white paper does not seem to mention protocol invoicing at all. I don’t have much opinion about @KevinMehrabi’s proposition but it looks to me like a charitable donation as envisioned in Section 4.3.1 of the position paper.

1 Like

Thanks for stating the position paper, honestly I did not have it in my mind. However, I honestly keep thinking that…

  1. In the white paper it is not mentioned literally “invoicement”, but it is mentioned that the current voting procedure is designed for protocol amendments… so logically we can assume that the invoicement attached to that procedure is aimed to reward protocol amendment proposals.

  2. Posterior position paper complements white paper, but does not amend it.

  3. Position paper chapter 4.3.1 (Raising Awareness) is englobed in the main chapter “4. Potential developments” of the position paper.

  4. That potential developement (charitable actions) has not been developed yet, protocol amendment procedure is designed for another kind of technical proposals that require testing period, cool down period etc etc etc… so it is not efficient to mix that different procedures.

  5. If you really want to use Tezos for charitable actions, first, make a protocol amendment that includes into the protocol a different procedure for so, and then community can vote if Tezos should become a charitable protocol or not.

  6. If Tezos becomes a protocol for charitable actions, many of the fundraiser donors that invested according to an intial protocol design will change their mind to Tezos.

  7. That all being said, Tezos Africa proposal is not presented as a charitable proposal but as a community developement proposal.

  8. Community developement proposals are not included in the position paper in any way.

  9. Tezos Foundations was constituted to fund community developement proposals (among othet things), so the logical thing is, if TF does not fund Tezos Africa, that Kevin and other Tezos Africa supporters make their own Foundation with their own funds. I already said I am willing to delegate some funds to African Bakers if so.

Truffle??? Tezos support was at start limited and experimental but Truffle dropped Tezos support like over two years ago!

Did you use Chat GPT without proofreading?

Furthermore you say that their grant was not renewed. I am sure that Tezos Africa used this money to promote Tezos but can we see some trackrecord? What kind of events/hackathons, how often etc?

I would like to see what was done with the previous grant before jumping on the ship.
Also why did noone from the Tezos Africa board join Tezos Agora and made the post, or just join the conversation?

1 Like

Please show the part of the whitepaper that would indicate this.

I think it’s a good question to ask what have these communities done, and moreover I’ll take it a step further and say an even better question is what they will do with further funding.

However, the record you have stated is not the case. These communities have been very active. What exactly are you looking for as a cutoff? Because it doesn’t matter how much I or others show — subjectively you could always say it’s not enough.

Is there a criteria you would consider to be satisfactory, if met?

Very well said, and I totally agree. We can hold spaces, and I think Agora discussions here would be great. Not just from the leadership of Tezos Africa, but also the individual community heads. They all have stories to tell and plans to share.

The technology landscape is always changing, but I think it goes to show the comprehensive nature of their involvement and also how early/long-standing their heritage in the ecosystem has been — and hence, worth mentioning.

1 Like

The whitepaper states very clearly that the voting procedure is for protocol amendments (2.3.2 Amending the protocol).

Can you show us where the whitepaper states that the voting procedure is designed and purpoused for community funding?

Before engaging in a debate about what is and what is not permitted, I don’t agree with the implicit assessment that the Tezos Whitepaper is a constitution or holy document — the words of which must explicitly guide the conduct of the flock. That kind of dogmatic thinking is not only sacrilege but antithetical to the ethos of a self-amending protocol that is meant to evolve based on the times.

This is literally the first time I’ve ever seen anyone attempt to use what is or is not in the whitepaper in such a manner.

However, if we are to accept that unsupported premise and take the Whitepaper as a scripture, then by that logic the prophet who revealed this scripture would be the inherent interpreter and expounder of their own revelation.

And for that I’d direct you to this (again, not necessary):

See 23:24 Arthur Breitman Tezos AMA 2022-04-24 - YouTube

1 Like

The protocol amendment procedure serves the purpose of voting on technical proposals. This is not just mentioned in the whitepaper; it is evident from its five-stage design, which aims to facilitate the adoption or rejection of technical proposals. These proposals may involve testing periods, adoption periods, and more.

Furthermore, attaching community funding proposals to the technical proposals introduces a discordant element to the procedure, which is not desirable.

If the goal is to turn Tezos also into a community funding protocol, why not propose an independent technical amendment specifically for adding an extra community funding mechanism? This way, technical and community proposals remain separate, and the community can vote on whether Tezos should become also into a community-funding protocol or not. If there’s a genuine desire to utilize Tezos for community-funding actions, I think it’s better to amend the protocol accordingly before combining technical and community proposals.

This funding invoice would be literally part of a proposal. That’s the point. Proposal does not mean technology upgrades alone (which is what I think you’re trying to say). It means whatever is proposed. Likewise, in our traditional governments, when funding appropriations are made they are proposed as a bill, that get passed into laws. We don’t typically think of ‘laws’ as relating to funding, but that is very much the case in legislative bodies all over the world.

This is just newly being utilized in Tezos, and it’s a good thing. It leads to the ecosystem’s independence from a single non-profit as the central point of funding for projects and organizations. It brings the weight of power in that regard to the bakers.

Also there is nothing wrong with discordance — the point of on-chain governance is to discuss, debate, hash it out. Sometimes we get what we want, sometimes we don’t. Sometimes we are unhappy with outcomes, but in the end we stay united and live to fight another day. If the funding decision turns out to be a mistake, then that would serve as clear evidence to bring forth any other time someone wants to do this — to show that either funding should not be given, or that strict and new standards should be applied based on and informed by the results of the previous occurance.

I actually agree that it would be better to advance the protocol governance so that separate amendment issues could be debated and voted on separately — before becoming part of the overall upgrade — as opposed to everything all at once. In fact I think that would be a good discussion to have.

I’d also add that it would certainly make the job of myself and others who have and are lobbying for votes easier — and not the uphill battle of trying to overtake the stock proposal which gets the ‘default’ vote.

However, this is the system we have today, so the best we can do is work within it. In the meantime, this is an important initiative.