Members may not be applicants, employed by, contracted to, or have received compensation from an applicant in the 3 months prior to nomination. Any new conflict must be self-disclosed immediately; breach triggers automatic suspension.
Below that threshold, if a relationship with a provider is material enough to affect objectivity, the member discloses to the chair, abstains from that applicant’s evaluation.
The committee will push back on askew budgets in interviews; that’s baked into the evaluation criteria. Publishing caps or tiers creates its own problem: last cycle, funding options turned into a pricing game where providers (imo) optimized for inclusion.
As written in the passing proposal, the budget and the $200K floor are the only guardrails. Teams should request fair compensation for the work. That’s the standard.
Yes.
I think this is a fair request. I will see about multi-field selection. If not possible I don’t see this negatively effecting a submission because a provider can select “General ENS Ecosystem” if they don’t fit a single category.
Scope Clarity is a criteria. It will be on the provider to precisely communicate and connect a multi-objective application with specific problems and a credible approach to them.
Update all of your public information and schedule a call promptly after submitting so we can provide feedback and ask questions about your work.
The burden is on the applicant to effectively and accurately communicate the depth and value propositon of their work. A good application will do this.
There is already public documentation on previous provider work. Your reports for example detail lot. There are call notes, githubs, websites, tweets, etc. This is all for context building. The committee will have access to a consolidated list of all of this information.
You can’t be credibly involved in ENS or Ethereum and not know other people. The committee was selected because it presents a balanced group without the pollution of delegate politics, and without outsourcing evaluation to someone with no context on the work.
Prohibited interests: Members may not be applicants, employed by, contracted to, hold stake in, or serve in any advisory capacity to any SPP3 applicant. Direct compensation from an applicant in the 3 months prior to nomination also disqualifies.
After ratification: Any new conflict must be self-disclosed immediately as it arises. Failing to disclose is independently grounds for removal.
Enforcement: Breach triggers automatic suspension pending a removal vote. Removal = forfeiture of all unpaid compensation.
No backchanneling: Once the application window opens, members cannot meet privately with applicants. All program discussion goes through the structured interview.
Disputes: Handled within the committee; defaults to delegate coordination or an executable DAO vote if the accountability body isn’t functioning.
The standard is simple: does a member stand to benefit financially or professionally from how they rate a provider? The rules covering that are in the proposal and restated above.