I think the question is who’s running the gateways.
I think they are. Perhaps I am mistaken?
- More detailed cost-structure breakdown for $1.2M
Yes this would help.
Our direct experience has demonstrated that the Service Providers renewal process does not allow us to attract and retain top-tier talent. This is not a point for debate - it reflects our lived experience and something we know to be true.
I understand that. Would you guys be okay with an interim proposal to cover expenses until the next tranch of the SP program which I assume would also increase the limits and funding given to projects?
@nick.eth , @AvsA and @katherine.eth what I see here as concerning is that we have someone providing services to the DAO, and saying they do not have enough funding to continue doing so for the ENSV2 plans.
Either the services they provide are good and we want them or they are not and we don’t want them.
Can we get a technical breakdown of what Unruggable is doing for the DAO by some third party to perhaps decide if it’s worth it. To me it seems it is essential to the ENSv2 plans but I am also not as well versed as others on the technicalities of it.
Assuming it is necessary for the DAO, then we really can’t have a situation where a company doing work for the DAO does not have enough funding to operate and we tell them to just wait 6 months to a year for a process that may or may not vote in favour of giving them something.