While we support Celo’s transition to an Ethereum L2 and appreciate Stabila’s vision, we have some questions regarding the volume metrics presented. Our previous analyses indicate that a portion of the transaction volume may stem from “dusting” activity rather than reflecting sustained user engagement. While we acknowledge the increase in stablecoin transactions—especially for cUSD—we’ve observed a median transaction value around $0.0016 (for cUSD, which is the third dominant asset in the stablecoin market for Celo), which may not necessarily reflect widespread adoption or meaningful usage patterns.
Regarding the pool split for the UNI incentives, we would appreciate more specific usage metrics for cEUR, cKES, COPM, and BRLA. The proposal mentions the use cases for these stablecoins, but including numerical data to support these claims would provide additional clarity.
We believe this proposal would benefit from more than just active addresses and raw volume figures. A clearer roadmap for Stabila, along with qualitative insights into user acquisition, partner integrations, and the types of real-world use cases being developed, would provide a stronger foundation for understanding the project’s long-term potential. In short, we see promise here, but would welcome additional detail to better gauge the depth and authenticity of the ecosystem’s growth.