Service provider program scope and deliverables

[nick.eth]

I’m excited to see the service provider program being renewed for another year. In its first year, it’s already funded some outstanding providers who have delivered real, meaningful improvements to ENS and the DAO.

At times I’ve seen some confusion and disagreement around the purpose of the service provider program. While my opinion here is purely my own, I think it lines up well with Alex’s vision, and so I thought it might be useful to share it here so others can add their two cents as well.

The most essential attribute of a service provider is right there in the name - they are providing a service to the DAO. The program does not exist to fund arbitrary public goods, or as seed funding for a venture - it’s designed to offer payment in return for a service. Providers put forward a proposal stating what they can do and what it will costs, and the DAO, through its delegates, decides if that is a service the DAO needs, and if the cost is reasonable.

Implicit in that is that the service on offer must be something the DAO needs or wants.

So, what does the DAO need? In my mind there are three broad categories:

1. ENS infrastructure: Anything that improves ENS as a whole. This includes development work on smart contracts, frontends, libraries, etc that increase the usefulness or scope of ENS. The majority providers in the first program round focused on this, and it’s where I hope the majority of service provider program funding will go this year as well.
2. Outreach and integrations: Efforts to increase the adoption and usage of ENS, such as integration support for wallets, DApps and exchanges, marketing efforts, or other related initiatives.
3. DAO infrastructure: Anything that improves the operation and smooth running of the DAO. This includes improvements and automation of the DAO’s processes, voting frontends, tools for transparency and accountability, communication tools, etc. Many things in this category will result in producing public goods that are useful to other DAOs as well, which is great - as long as the funding is used first and foremost to build something that the DAO needs and wants.

If your project, however noteworthy, doesn’t fit into these categories, please consider applying to the public goods working group for funding instead. We’re not trying to fund all of Web3 here; even if your project integrates ENS at its very heart, the service provider program exists to build ENS - not the whole ecosystem of products that use or integrate it. The DAO simply isn’t big enough to fund every worthwhile project that uses ENS; we need to focus first and foremost on building ENS itself.

Finally, a note about duplication: Last year we had several providers, all individually credible, who were proposing to build essentially the same thing. As a delegate, if you see this happening, consider choosing the candidate most likely to succeed and campaigning for them with other delegates - even if you think there are multiple good options. As a prospective service provider, look at other proposals and consider how best to differentiate yourself. Unfortunately, due to the nature of ranked choice voting, even with best intentions all around the DAO may end up appointing multiple parties to do the same thing, but we can at least strive to minimize duplicated efforts.

[brantlymillegan]

Thanks for sharing your personal framework for thinking about the service provider program.

I’d like to highlight a key phrase in your post:

@nick.eth

my opinion here is purely my own

In other words, the post above is Nick’s personal vision for the Service Provider program, it is not the official criteria for the program approved by the DAO.

Here is what the DAO approved regarding scope for the program:

Note that Nick’s framework is significantly more specific and narrow than the official terms approved by the DAO.

Nick and other delegates may vote based on whatever reasons they want, but I don’t want delegates to read Nick’s post above and mistake them as the official rules for the program.

[nick.eth]

@brantlymillegan

Here is what the DAO approved regarding scope for the program:

Don’t forget to quote the preceding paragraph, too:

What is the Service Provider Program

The ENS constitution states that “Any income generated to the ENS treasury is to be used first of all to ensure the long-term viability of ENS, and to fund continuing development and improvement of the ENS system.”. The goal of this program is to create a more diverse and decentralized base of developers and companies involved in the improvement of the ENS system, by creating a guaranteed income stream to support their continued work.

[clowes.eth]

Thanks for sharing your personal positioning on the program @nick.eth

@5pence.eth alluded to this in the Metagov calls, but perhaps posts like this could be collated in the new ‘Service Provider’ forum category. Perhaps a ‘Delegate Viewpoints’ section would be useful to supplement the existing categories and allow a public platform for delegates (who are representatives of the DAO) to express their viewpoints on what they would like to see.

Generally I agree with your three categorisations, and your commentary on duplication. I think more intentionality should be given by the DAO to designing this upcoming iteration of the program so as to avoid unnecessary duplication.

@nick.eth

Unfortunately, due to the nature of ranked choice voting, even with best intentions all around the DAO may end up appointing multiple parties to do the same thing

I think acknowledgement of this (which I agree with) is indicative of a viewpoint that a misallocation of limited resources will likely occur. That is, in my opinion, a problem.

[nick.eth]

@clowes.eth

I think acknowledgement of this (which I agree with) is indicative of a viewpoint that a misallocation of limited resources will likely occur. That is, in my opinion, a problem.

Unfortunately, I don’t see a practical solution within the constraints of the SPP as voted on. An alternative program that avoids this would look quite different - starting with the approval (by voting) of a set of RFPs, and then the election of a single provider for each RFP.

[ENSPunks.eth]

@nick.eth

What is the Service Provider Program

The ENS constitution states that “Any income generated to the ENS treasury is to be used first of all to ensure the long-term viability of ENS, and to fund continuing development and improvement of the ENS system.”

Article III continues:
“ENS governance will not allocate funds to a team or individual who does not commit to uphold the same principles outlined in this constitution in their use of the allocated funds.”

Though I think it is unlikely any such team nor individual that secures the required SP votes falls into this category - the Constitution is binding and a reasonable interpretation suggests at least some Governance oversight notwithstanding the DAO vote.

With respect to the additional points Nick brought up, particularly vis-a-vis returning SP’s, I think they are in a unique position compared to first time applicants and returning (unsuccessful applicants). Specifically, unlike the later, who will presumably submit nominations with proposed budgets the returning applicants can give transparent and itemized breakdowns reflecting how their budget was allocated/spent, or not, in the first year.

Why It Matters: The DAO can’t confirm alignment with Article III. This minimizes risks of misallocation and could be helpful to delegates concerning themselves with “duplicates” as described by Nick. For example, if multiple teams are working on the same thing, the deciding factor could reasonably come down to which team was more effective with SP stream in the first year, which is about more than just absolute dollar amounts.

Benefits:

• Accountability: Proves stewardship, builds trust.
• Informed Governance: Delegates assess past impact.
• Constitutional Fidelity: Upholds Article III’s mandate.