Executed

#346 Bounty Proposal for Public RPCs for Relay and System Chains

Proposer:

Gustav

in Democracy

8th Dec '23

(Edited)

Description

AI Summary

Votes Bubble

Timeline

Evaluation

On Chain Info

Stats

This is a joint-proposal by BlockOps, Dwellir, LuckyFriday, OnFinality, RadiumBlock, RockX, and Stakeworld. Valuable input to this proposal has also been made by the proposed curators.

TL;DR:

This proposal outlines a procurement strategy for public RPC services in Polkadot and Kusama ecosystems, aiming for high-quality, decentralized, and cost-effective services. It addresses the vital need for reliable RPCs, emphasizing their role in applications like Polkadot.JS and wallets. The strategy focuses on optimizing quality of service, sustainable cost, and decentralization, introducing key definitions and standards. Tenders from RPC providers can follow two models: cost targets or predefined service levels. The proposed budget is $400,000, split between Polkadot and Kusama treasuries.

Introduction

This proposal aims to implement a procurement strategy for public RPC services in the Polkadot and Kusama ecosystems. The goal is to ensure high-quality, decentralized, and cost-effective services for essential applications like Polkadot.JS and wallets. The need for robust public infrastructure was emphasized during Polkadot Decoded discussions.

Problem Statement

Reliable public RPC services are crucial for the growth of the Polkadot and Kusama ecosystems. Existing applications, such as Polkadot.js.org and Nova Wallet, require optimal functioning for an enhanced user experience. The proposal addresses the challenge of balancing service provision with sustainable treasury spending. It acknowledges the evolving role of light clients and the continued need for RPCs and bootnodes.

Proposed Strategy

The procurement strategy aims to optimize quality of service, sustainable cost, decentralization, and simplicity. Key definitions, such as curators, independent RPC monitoring, system chains, and qualified RPC providers, are outlined. Quality of Service Reports and Service Agreements form essential components, with predefined standards and penalties for non-compliance.

Tender Submission and Evaluation

A transparent process is proposed for RPC providers to submit tenders, with defined standards of service. Two potential options for tenders are presented: one focusing on cost targets and the other on predefined service levels. The curators, responsible for evaluation, scoring, and public announcement of selected providers, will ensure transparency and community involvement.

Operations Phase

RPC providers awarded service agreements are obligated to provide services throughout the six-month operations phase. Independent RPC monitoring will assess performance, and metrics will be made public. Providers will be paid monthly in arrears based on the EMA7 day average price of DOT/KSM.

Budget and Costings

The proposed budget for the program is $400,000, providing a 12-month runway for assessment. Funding will be split between Polkadot and Kusama treasuries, with curator payments of $350 per month from the Polkadot portion. The budget accounts for potential quarterly expense variations based on traffic and evolving requirements.

Read the full proposal here.

We are excited to share this proposal and are eager to hear your thoughts and feedback. Please feel free to comment, share your insights, and make suggestions to help refien this proposal further.

This proposal has been put forward by the following members of the RPC community:

BlockOps, Dwellir, LuckyFriday, OnFinality, RadiumBlock, RockX, and Stakeworld.

Bounty Proposal

This specific proposal covers the costs for Polkadot nodes, and Rococo & Westend. It also covers the stipends for the curators and the external monitoring. To calculate the requested DOT we used EMA7 on the 8th of December. Which was $5.925/DOT.

Users are saying...

Based on all comments and replies

Overall 25 % of users are feeling optimistic. The proposal submitted by Gustav has been commended for its collaborative and effective solution to painpoints within the Polkadot ecosystem, optimizing cost and value while increasing accountability and streamlining operations. The timing is ideal given Parity's intent to discontinue end points provision. This initiative could reduce ongoing dependencies on treasury funding as volumes increase in relay chain and system chains.

Overall 75 % of users are feeling neutral. The text discusses the importance of tracking and publishing RPC performance metrics in Polkadot's infrastructure funding proposals. It suggests evaluating candidates based on weighted metrics beyond cost alone, allowing for analysis of bids and scoring for crypto-friendly platforms. The community seeks information about important infrastructure specifications for the RPC providers' hardware locations to avoid reliance on anti-crypto companies.

AI-generated from comments

SAXEMBERG

Governance...

9th Dec '23

It is great to see that RPCs overall performance (latency, uptime, etc.) is going to be tracked and published. This is a big plus over previous versions of pooled infrastructure funding proposals.

Will the community also receive information about important infrastructure specifications for the RPC providers' hardware loactions, specially the network type and colocation company (if applicable)?

We wouldn't like to see anti-crypto companies such as Hetzner and many others profit from the treasury when they have an openly anti-crypto position explicitly present in their ToS.

This is the best moment to ask this, otherwise, once the bounty gets approved and curators approved, it will be difficult to make changes on such issues and ask information about these specs as the funding most likely go to all operations that are working regardless of infrastructure company or network.

Our position is that Polkadot shouldn't be reliant on anti-crypto infrastructure such as Hetzner (which could turn off any minute like what happened on Solana in 2022) and even big tech like AWS, Google, etc. In addition, knowing what type of infrastructure the RPCs are using, helps create a healthy geographical and network balance so that we don't end up like certain blockchains where most of the activity happens within AWS east coast 1.

Looking forward to your answer.

Hide replies

paradox

11th Dec '23

@saxemberg

Hey Sax,

The original concept suggests evaluation of candidates based on a score sheet of weighted metricd. This allows for analysis of bids beyond "Let's pick the five with the lowest cost". It affords an opportunity to add scoring for supplying service on crypto-friendly platforms.

The weights are determined by the curation team, so it is best that they respond on this part.

BILL

13th Dec '23

Requester address: 13u5odFdy7uFmRLpbgtYGWeFy8rFkcD3bYfad49B81C31pwL

Verified identity: Yes

When registered/verified: 29 Dec 2021 / 29 Dec 2021

Previous TPs from this account: None

W3F Grants: None

Ivy

15th Dec '23

Voted Aye

Hi Gustav,

Thank you for submitting this proposal.

The RPC Community that has worked on this proposal should be commended for their collaboration and leadership in finding a solution to the stated painpoints in a manner which optimizes cost and value provided to the Polkadot ecosystem, while increasing accountability and steamlining operations.

The timing of this ask is also quite strong given Parity's intent to discontinue the provision of its end points.

As the relay chain and system chains experience more volumes, our hope is that this can serve as an intermediary step towards the RPC community reducing ongoing dependencies on treasury funding.

Ivy votes in favour of this proposal.

Discover similar proposals

#1485