Threshold
Hi All,
I would like to share a few thoughts that I've expressed in other quarters with regards to the IBP and this particular proposal.
My response would be grouped into the following sections:
These are all my opinions...
Disclosures
Thoughts on the IBP
The IBP leverages on the concept of a group of tech savy community members coming together to provide technical services to the ecosystem. Funding to provide services is subsidised by the treasury with up-front allocations ($30,000) and somewhat secure monthly funding as long as the bounty remains funded. This reduces the capital risk that regular RPC providers take. The IBP also makes seperate allocations for administrative cost and tooling (Global Services) for which most other public providers include in their rate. This is fine for a community programme as we've seen similar supported initiatives such as the 1KV.
From an insider view, the team is doing a lot of good work, there is attention to detail, camaraderie and funding is spent as proposed.
If I were to critique, I would suggest that attention needs to be paid on the hobbyist tracks which is (at present) fairly stagnant. I think the members track is sticky, it almost feel like a treasury funded business, as opposed to a programme in which you may expect rotation or fair-share to those that qualify. Appreciating the technicalities, it is certainly difficult to expect short term rotation. However, I think with attention, these things can be improved.
Overall, an Aye.
RPC Bounty & IBP
I white-papered the procurement strategy for RPC funding to help alleviate a few problems with public RPC provision, in short:
The fundamentals of the approach is well established and follows traditional procurement. One would expect that this fair entry approach would attract vendors (in/outside of our ecosystem) to compete in a manner that after a few iterations and with transparency of bids, would yield a market-rate.
With this model, RPC providers are taking their own capital risk i.e. no lumpsums or subsidies. They must maintain server standards or face loss of earnings.
The providers under the RPC bounty provide service based on directive from the curators who have set service requirements based on analysis of previous usage. This (again imo) is a very efficient approach that scales with network need. In an age of significant use of light clients, we would see reduced RPC demand and as such the curators can scale down provision.
While the core service is the same, the approach is vastly different. Where financing permits, I see no reason why both bounties can't co-exist.
Overall an Aye
Funding Parachain RPC
I've shared my view on funding of RPC services for Parachains with referendum 354 issued by OnFinality. I maintain my position that for-profit parachains projects should not receive relay-chain funding or subsidy for RPC services.
Imo, if a parachain project has high RPC traffic, it is most likely "doing well" and can afford service or in the least be able to leverage of some service-in-kind. If it is not "doing well" then there would be very little RPC traffic.
The proposal is also vauge on the selection criteria, depriving me of an opportunity to further examine. Putting a logo and slogan on your website is not sufficient selection criteria. Leaving it up to the curators to be fair also doesn't work for me. Picking favorites can lead to competitive advantage.
A confident Nay
Rationale for vote
It is important for me to be consciously consistent with my votes, especially with matters that set precedence. Relay-chain treasury funding of Parachain infra is a big no-no for me. On the other side, I am also a supporter of the IBP (in principle) and can't see myself voting against.
Since, I can't with good mind vote Aye or Nay then I must Abstain.
Regards,
Will | Paradox
Hello from Polkadotters!
As we are part of the IBP, we abstained from this vote as our vote might be taken as a conflict of interest. But surely, we support this initiative, because globally distributed infrastructure services benefit the Polkadot ecosystem at the backend.
Before we cast our votes on this proposal, let's discuss the bounty program for Public RPCs for Relay and System chains that was approved in December 2023.
This program, backed by several infrastructure providers, costs only a tenth of what the IBP-Bounty does.
Are we aiming to create an ecosystem that relies solely on Treasury funds? The IBP-Bounty is requesting $4 million to purchase servers and offer services to parachains at no direct cost (though funded by all DOT holders through the Treasury).
In the short term, this is quite costly ($4 million!), and over the long haul, it threatens the development of a self-reliant ecosystem where diverse providers can offer services to parachains.
Because of the IBP's offerings, parachains might not engage with other providers, preferring services provided at no charge by the IBP. This setup makes it hard for other providers to compete, especially since they don't have $4 million to invest in hardware. What will happen next year if this bounty program is discontinued? Without a thriving market of service providers, support for parachains could come to a halt.