Proposed by:
Requested amount:
0 DOT

#1365 · Proposing new curators for the Public RPC Bounty (31)

Dear community,

This referendum seeks to re-propose a curator for the Public RPC Bounty as a consequence of the previous curators not renewing their intent. This resulted in providers not being paid for services rendered in November and December 2024.

After internal evaluation it was determined that it would be in the best interest of the bounty to have a new curation team. It is anticipated that the new curation team would aid with improving reporting, stakeholder engagement, timely payouts, SLA reviews and transparency of the procurement process.

The proposed curators are Frankywild, Coinstudio, Tim Janssen, Cappex and Pastaman. As a team they were recently handed over curation of a similar bounty in place on Kusama. In their short term they have already filled many of the gaps as identified earlier and are working assiduously towards putting administrative processes in place for future efficient running’s. For those unfamiliar with the bounty here’s a TL;DR:

The Public RPC Bounty sought provide RPC services to the public in a structured and price controlled manner. Before the bounty RPC providers would individually invoice the treasury for services rendered. The bounty took an analytical approach of determining the RPC needs for the ecosystem, the number of providers required for adequate coverage and putting this scope out for public tender. Tenderers need only prove their technical capabilities to be eligible participants.

While there’s need for improvement with some of the administrative aspects, the bounty (imo) was successful with improving the value of RPC service delivery to the community.

Kind Regards,
Will | Paradox | The guy they should have listened to

Read more
StatusDeciding · 27d
100%Aye
Aye (31)
216.68K DOT
Nay (0)
0 DOT
Decision0 / 28d
0.0%28.7%
22.9%Support Threshold
0Support Threshold
Support(0.01%)
≈ 105.79K DOT
Issuance
≈ 1.52B DOT
Vote
Dec 24

Hi Lily,

Thanks for replying, firstly yes the bounty (as with all others) should be compliant with the requirements of WFC 1254. Not necessarily because WFC 1254 exists but this is the level of transparency and reporting that should be expexted from all bounties. Any failings with regards to this in relation to bounty 31 falls within the gaps I mentioned in my initial post.

You points with regards to the curators is a resonable one, we wouldn't want to move from one bad situation into another, as they say, from the frying pan into the fire.

In support of the proposed team, I can attest that they're already hard at work putting together a framework for payments, reporting, extrinsics and top-up proposals. Payouts have already been made on Kusama within a short time, they're actually engaging providers based on performance reports and they're preparing for the next round of tender in a very pragmatic way.

They have also extracted previous payout information and summaried payouts as seen with the sheets below.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AY53JZi1tRiEzhBBsAVyGYwHHtljToCBlkQAkEM8RbY/edit?gid=1657774939#gid=1657774939

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qUmjxXYcHnJCqm2V9PakjMlhdiOXmJOM8flZG787bM4/edit?gid=0#gid=0

These guys are working already.

Lily_MendzDec 24

I think it's great that the group of curators for each Bounty is updated regularly. The proposed group is already acting as curators in other bounties and also holding other roles within the ecosystem. I want to ensure that adding this new responsibility won’t interfere with their existing tasks or lead to any being neglected.

Another question is whether you plan to adapt the Bounty based on what was proposed in WFC 1254?

Powered by Subsocial