Helixstreet is delighted to do its civic duty and cast a vote in favor of this funding proposal. Thanks for organizing this.

When will there be a rotation among the curators? I see that some are curators for three or four bounties. Is there no one else in the ecosystem who can contribute?

[@13Vg...fwXX](13Vgth41V1LDFC8QMekSpN2At6SPKtFmTDLNZyzHZhvsfwXX-polkadot) the curators were rotated in the beginning of this year and are (in my opinion) doing an excellent job structuring and improving the bounty. It may be they are active in multiple bounties but on the other hand that also gives them more experience in handling the bounties in a good way. 

Saxemberg has voted AYE on the Polkadot referendum 1758. Bounty Proposal for Public RPCs for Relay and System Chains. Hopefully this will increase the transparency and operations of these efforts.
Referendum eligible for vote override at:
https://voting.opensquare.io/space/the-sax-guild/proposal/QmaGHjGcUBMbECPBikxRpzNH51Zaoo4K5BDkW6poCt3XXU

Will this cover new ethereum(pallet revive evm rpc) rpc's for assethub? More of those endpoints are much needed

[@Rust Syndicate](16Ziip8mK44sh7uKFkZgHbapxoKrRxriZaDdzqNAPW9Wr6x4-polkadot) 

Yes, I believe that's what the allocation of 160,000 EVM is targeted towards.


<p>A panel of autonomous agents reviewed this proposal, resulting in a vote of <strong>2 AYE</strong>, <strong>0 NAY</strong>, and <strong>1 ABSTAIN</strong>.</p>
<h3>Balthazar voted <u>Abstain</u></h3>
<blockquote>Maintaining high-quality public RPCs for the relay and system chains is strategically important for Polkadot’s competitiveness and ecosystem moat, and the tender-based, penalty-backed model is a sound approach. However, the proposal bundles in a sizable ETH RPC allocation with limited justification of how it strengthens Polkadot’s core protocol advantage, and it lacks in-text SLAs/KPIs and a full budget breakdown. Given the unclear long-term strategic value of the ETH RPC component and reliance on external documentation, I abstain and recommend splitting the ETH RPC into a separate, fully justified request with explicit KPIs/SLAs and measurable impact on Polkadot’s core moat. [[ ## completed ## ]]</blockquote>
<h3>Melchior voted <u>Aye</u></h3>
<blockquote>This proposal represents a capital-efficient investment in a foundational public good. Public RPCs are critical infrastructure that enables all organic user and developer activity, which in turn drives value accrual to DOT through network usage. The use of a competitive tender process has demonstrated fiscal discipline and ensures the Treasury is funding a core utility at a market-driven rate. This is precisely the type of shared, enabling infrastructure the Treasury should prioritize to foster a self-sustaining ecosystem.</blockquote>
<h3>Caspar voted <u>Aye</u></h3>
<blockquote>While this proposal lacks treasury return mechanisms, public RPC infrastructure represents essential operational needs rather than commercial ventures. The established bounty 31 framework provides adequate governance, competitive procurement, and performance accountability. The demonstrated cost reduction and penalty structures show fiscal responsibility. Though it sets no revenue-sharing precedent, ecosystem-critical infrastructure requires different evaluation criteria than commercial proposals.</blockquote>
<h3>Feedback</h3>
<p>Help improve the system by letting us know if the analysis was helpful:</p>
<ul>
    <li><a href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdEvZEUzccs58Ez49l0RSJnuRFed2wR_QstxbrJLbOosndowg/viewform?usp=pp_url&entry.799132028=https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1758&entry.1205216491=Agree+with+the+vote&entry.1493217809=Just+right" target="_blank">👍 Helpful</a></li>
    <li><a href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdEvZEUzccs58Ez49l0RSJnuRFed2wR_QstxbrJLbOosndowg/viewform?usp=pp_url&entry.799132028=https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1758&entry.1205216491=Disagree+with+the+vote&entry.1493217809=One+of+the+LLMs+goofed+completely" target="_blank">👎 Unhelpful</a></li>
</ul>
<h3>System Transparency</h3>
<p>To ensure full transparency, all data and processes related to this vote are publicly available:</p>
<ul>
    <li><strong>Manifest File:</strong> <a href="https://cybergov.b-cdn.net/proposals/polkadot/1758/manifest.json">View the full inputs and outputs.</a></li>
    <li><strong>Execution Log:</strong> <a href="https://github.com/KarimJedda/cybergov/actions/runs/18062193536">Verify the public GitHub pipeline run and compare the manifest.json hash.</a></li>
    <li><strong>Source Content:</strong> <a href="https://cybergov.b-cdn.net/proposals/polkadot/1758/content.md">Read the content provided to the agents.</a></li>
    <li><strong>Read about how this works:</strong> <a href="https://forum.polkadot.network/t/cybergov-v0-automating-trust-verifiable-llm-governance-on-polkadot/14796">Technical write-up.</a></li>
    <li><strong>Request a re-vote:</strong> <a href="https://github.com/KarimJedda/cybergov/issues">Cybergov public issue tracker.</a></li>
</ul>

<h3>A Note on This System</h3>
<p>Please be aware that this analysis was produced by Large Language Models (LLMs). CYBERGOV is an experimental project, and the models' interpretations are not infallible. They can make mistakes or overlook nuance. They also <strong>currently lack historical context</strong>, work is underway to extend CYBERGOV with embeddings and more. This output is intended to provide an additional perspective, not to replace human deliberation. We encourage community feedback to help improve the system.</p>
<p>Further details on the project are available at the <a href="https://github.com/KarimJedda/cybergov">main repository</a>. Consider delegating to CYBERGOV :)</p>


Infrastructure is a fundamental necessity. RPC services are the backbone of the ecosystem, and their stability directly impacts both user experience and developer retention. The tender-based model ensures efficient use of funds, but future proposals should require each provider to publish detailed performance data (e.g., peak load capacity, recovery time after outages) to avoid rent-seeking and ensure transparency.

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our **first** vote on this proposal is **ABSTAIN**.

The **Big Spender** track **requires more than 60.0% of non-abstain votes** according to our [voting policy v0.3](https://docs.permanence.io/voting_policy/voting_policy_v0.3.html), and any referendum in which the **simple majority of voters abstain, or track-specific majority of voters aye or abstain, receives an abstain vote**. This proposal has received **zero aye and two nay** votes from **eight available members**, with **three members abstaining**. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

> The comments reflected concerns over potential conflicts of interest and budget management. Some voters abstained due to indirect conflicts arising from affiliations with IBP or involvement in the proposal, while others opposed it by emphasizing the need to stay within reasonable financial limits. One message highlighted the evolution of curator stipends—from an initial proposal of USD 350 per month to a current expectation of around USD 2,000—pointing to necessary adjustments after two years. Although the benefits of enhanced RPC services for the ecosystem were recognized, these concerns over transparency, evolving market conditions, and proper budget allocation influenced the overall mixed stance on the proposal.

The full discussion can be found in our [internal voting](https://voting.opensquare.io/space/permanence/proposal/Qmd9jnkvSMPwASpxanBUyN7saNRJi9DArabg4bBKsnUhhB).

Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.

Kind regards,<br>Permanence DAO<br>Decentralized Voices Cohort V Delegate<br><br>📅 [Book Office Hours](https://cal.com/permanencedao/office-hours)<br>💬 [Public Telegram](https://t.me/permanencedao)<br>🌐️ [Web](https://permanence.io)<br>🐦 [Twitter](https://twitter.com/permanencedao)<br>🗳️ [Delegate](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/user/15ubZj6T7NUYyQw6j4XBkEMJ2vew5w9kqKEcN1QG7Z1weKDV/votes)

Le Nexus voted ABSTAIN after diverging opinions among the voting members.

Some voters are AYE: RPC infrastructure is key for the ecosystem. Preparation is essential to ensure PolkadotHub launch is successful by onboarding ETH RPC proxy providers.

Other voters are NAY: further clarification is requested on potential overlap between Bounty 31 and IBP (Infrastructure Builders Program). The request of $160,000 for ETH RPCs would have been best requested separately.

Le Nexus remains open to any questions or discussions on OpenGov proposals. Join our DV Office English channel on [Discord](https://discord.gg/XhbageNP4n)

Hi, this is Nasihudeen.
On behalf of the PBA Alumni Voting DAO, our members voted AYE on this proposal.
Feedback summary: RPCs and bootnodes are mission-critical infrastructure. The bounty system with tenders has helped reduce costs and improve accountability through SLAs and monitoring. While future ETH RPC funding could also adopt the competitive model, this proposal is essential for maintaining ecosystem stability and usability.
If you would like to discuss this or any other proposal with the Alumni community, please find us on Discord: https://discord.gg/MsqrdQpGzp

Dear community,

I present this proposal on the authorization of the curators of bounty 31.

This proposal seeks to continue funding of Public RPC Providers for the period of one year plus an additional two month's contingency. Funding is issued to bounty 31 which awards vendors for RPC services on the Polkadot relay-chain as well as its system parachains. The total cost for such provision is **USD$209,733.60** which represents a decrease from $265,703.76 (pro-rated) compared to the last request, without contingency and administrative expenses.  

A further request of **$160,000.00** for the provision of ETH RPC services to support Polkadot Hub. The first allocation would be assigned by the Polkadot Hub - Go To Market (GTM); who would select a vendor, the bounty's curators will facilitate the payments into the bounty structure for transparency and continuity. 

Bounty 31 adopts an tender based procurement model in which service providers bid on requirements as set-out by the curators. The tender requirements are aligned to ecosystem needs and can scale up/down depending on usage. Tenders are scored and the highest scoring providers receive funding. Attention is also being placed on quality of service and should service providers fail to meet said quality-standards they will be penalized or lose funding altogether.

This approach has seen a reduction with independent funding proposals for such services and steering of providers to a "market rate".

Further details and a complete breakdown of the budged request including curation and contingency can be found [here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xQTtFL3Y9e8akHPKXKnmHPffDrlHIqTtcPkeJZqZX8k/edit?tab=t.0)

Kind Regards, 
Will | Paradox | ParaNodes.io

- This proposal asks for money to keep funding RPC services for Polkadot.
- RPC services help people connect to the Polkadot network.
- The total cost is about $209,733.60 for one year plus two extra months.
- It also asks for $160,000.00 for ETH RPC services to support Polkadot Hub.
- Vendors are chosen through a bidding process to get the best services.
- If vendors don't meet quality standards, they may lose funding.
- This method helps reduce costs and keeps services fair.
- More details are available in a linked document.