[temp check] Renew Service Providers Program for Season 2

[clowes.eth]

@AvsA

Do you think it’s better to define this in the scope of the proposal or to let each delegate vote their own opinions?

I think there would be value in some sort of DAO focus group informally having a think about what they’d like to see. This is more for prospective applicants than the delegates. It could also coincide with some marketing of the program across platforms (X for example) to try and get more teams involved in the ecosystem.

Delegates can vote how they choose of course, and (as I see it) the program would still welcome novel ideas outside of the list of ‘things we would like to see’.

@Alexu

We may want to make it clear from the outset that considerable thought should be given to these KPIs

As with everything in life, this is a trade-off. The DAO should (of course) be financially prudent but it’s a balancing act. If the DAO want’s teams to think outside the box, and develop novel solutions to as-yet unknown problems there needs to be some level of flexibility.

Is the implication here that some Service Providers in the first year didn’t deliver? In principle the original terms gave the DAO powers to stop streams, but again it requires human bandwidth - a resource that is in limited supply.

@Alexu

We would not want a project that is significantly funded and for which the DAO spent a great deal of time refining the proposals and KPIs to have the ability to unilaterally change direction.

This comes full circle to my original point, namely that the program needs clarity on what it intends to achieve. Objective clarity. If that is literal ‘service provision’ - ‘the DAO wants this, who will do it, and for how much’, well defined KPIs make much more sense.

@estmcmxci

Would that mean that the DAO could exercise this discretion through a social proposal?

Would the funding termination be subject to a social proposal rather than an automatic or predefined mechanism?

No. it couldn’t and shouldn’t (IMO) be.