Ranking the many service provider submissions fairly is a tough job. I’ve made my best attempt at it, and I hope other delegates and candidates will find my reasoning here to be useful.
eth.limo
eth.limo have been quietly and competently working to make decentralised content via ENS work robustly and in a censorship resistant way for a long time now, and they’ve become exceedingly good at it. Any service provider program that doesn’t fund eth.limo is one that’s not working as intended.
blockful
Blockful’s contributions towards the DAO’s security have been absolutely crucial this past year or more. Their independent, reproduceable verification of calldata has been incredibly helpful.
ZK Email
A new team, but one I’ve spoken to at length now, and who I have no doubt can deliver on a project that will be a step-change in the features offered by ENS.
NameHash labs
ENSNode is going to be important infrastructure going forward, and it’s a big improvement on our subgraph. An easy vote, tempered only by the large ask, much of which goes to projects that I view as less critical to ENS.
Ethereum Identity Foundation
I was wrong to dismiss Ethereum Follow Protocol as out-of-scope in the previous round, and the combination of the expansion of the scope of the service provider program, and EFP rebranding as the Ethereum Identity Foundation and its renewed focus on ENS as an identity layer makes its fit for the program even clearer. The team has delivered in spades the past year and I’m excited to see what they build next.
Namestone
Subname projects were the flavor of the month last round, but few have delivered on that as well as Namestone, particularly with their focus on building tooling rather than just a fancy UI.
Lighthouse Labs
Lighthouse are building excellent governance tooling, and have been proactive at supporting ENS already.
JustaName
JustaName continue to build useful tooling for ENS devs.
Tally
Tally remains one of the best voting UIs, and one of the only ones capable of handling the complex executable votes we often need to propose for ENS.
Agora
The Agora team are communicative and reactive to our needs, but have not delivered to the degree I would have hoped in the past year, which is why I haven’t ranked them higher. I believe they’re a good team with a clear vision for DAO voting and nevertheless hope they do well.
3DNS
I like the 3DNS team and they have ample evidence of their ability to deliver tooling (3DNS itself) on a for-profit basis that enhances web3 and ENS. However, I don’t believe their offering for the SPP is crucial enough to ENS’s mission to warrant ranking above the many other qualified applicants.
