It is my understanding that Unruggable is one of the service providers showing up every day for ENS, and it’s clear they’re all in. Despite this, I do not support this proposal because I believe it is too large of an ask at the wrong time.
Points I object to:
-
Service Providers: I want to see the service provider program run it’s entire course, with an evaluation of all providers, before committing to such a significant expansion to one provider. This seems procedurally correct, preventing an environment where providers front-run one another with large asks. We need to flesh out what the next iteration of this program looks like so we can meet the needs of these service providers moving forward and scaling the program. I want to ensure that the 2-3 providers making meaningful contributions (spoiler alert on my opinion) all have a fair pathway to expansion and growth. There’s already a discussion on two-year streams here: A Brain Dump on Service Provider Program Season 2.
-
ENS Allocation: Generally don’t agree with the rationale. We have been okay with proposals finding a sponsor. A 100k allocation sets a significant precedence. Also, this request is a slippery slope for all providers who submit exectuable proposals to receive a 100k ENS allocation.
Points I support with revision:
- Infra Costs: If infrastructure costs block important development, I would support a revised proposal to cover these costs. I would also extend this rationale to requests from other providers if the needs were justified.
Reccomendation
I recommend that they put forward a proposal to cover infrastructure costs while waiting for the full cycle of the service provider program before proposing such a significant expansion