We are delighted to support this proposal. Our sincere thanks to the organizers and coordinators for their exemplary work in coordinating the entire RPC ecosystem.

Looks good to me! Keeping RPC providers well funded is super important, and this breakdown makes it clear where the funds are going. 

RPCs are some of the only currently core needs of Kusama. They will receive continued support for now.

Disclaimer:
Our modeling includes more than 1000 non-linguistic parameters so these are only verbal observations also included in the vote calculations and they are not an extensive review of the full rationale behind this vote. 


Le NEXUS members are so pleased to see:
`Bounty 25 adopts an tender based procurement model in which service providers bid on requirements as set-out by the curators. The tender requirements are aligned to ecosystem needs and can scale up/down depending on usage. Tenders are scored and the highest scoring providers receive funding.`

We finally some kind of competition for service providers.
Less Trust me bro, more competition.

AYE.

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our **first** vote on this proposal is **ABSTAIN**.

The **Big Spender** track **requires more than 60.0% of non-abstain votes** according to our [voting policy v0.3](https://docs.permanence.io/voting_policy/voting_policy_v0.3.html), and any referendum in which the **simple majority of voters abstain, or track-specific majority of voters aye or abstain, receives an abstain vote**. This proposal has received **two aye and one nay** votes from **eight available members**, with **three members abstaining**. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

> Several perspectives were expressed regarding funding public RPC providers. Some voters supported the need for RPC services while others abstained, citing potential conflicts of interest and possible involvement by DAO members in the proposal. Concerns were raised about the evolving subsidy for the curators, noting that the initially proposed stipend had increased significantly over time, which prompted calls for an adjustment in the proposed funding structure. Although the importance of maintaining robust network infrastructure was acknowledged, the worries about impartiality and funding recalibrations led to a cautious approach during the voting process.

The full discussion can be found in our [internal voting](https://voting.opensquare.io/space/permanence/proposal/QmPaCVVuzvLeCr26oR7xyY1KYn38bbVTJftptRteLEQGxo).

Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.

Kind regards, Permanence DAO Decentralized Voices Cohort V Delegate 📅 [Book Office Hours](https://cal.com/permanencedao/office-hours) 💬 [Public Telegram](https://t.me/permanencedao) 🌐️ [Web](https://permanence.io) 🐦 [Twitter](https://twitter.com/permanencedao) 🗳️ [Delegate](https://kusama.subsquare.io/user/EicAs5s99x17qZcQzJMiBCfada9rGyEC6njfiBX3j2EPr9W/votes)

Dear community,

I present this proposal on the authorization of the curators of bounty 25.

This proposal seeks to continue funding of Public RPC Providers for the period of one year plus an additional two month's contingency. Funding is issued to bounty 25 which awards vendors for RPC services on the Kusama relay-chain as well as its system parachains. The total cost for such provision is **USD$112,608.00** down from USD$148,764.00 (pro-rated) from the last request without contingency and administrative fees.

Bounty 25 adopts an tender based procurement model in which service providers bid on requirements as set-out by the curators. The tender requirements are aligned to ecosystem needs and can scale up/down depending on usage. Tenders are scored and the highest scoring providers receive funding.

Attention is also being placed on quality of service and should service providers fail to meet said quality-standards they will be penalized or lose funding altogether. 

This approach has seen a reduction with independent funding proposals for such services and steering of providers to a "market rate".

Further details can be found [here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xQTtFL3Y9e8akHPKXKnmHPffDrlHIqTtcPkeJZqZX8k/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.1n7fcehmx323)

Kind Regards,
Will | Paradox | ParaNodes.io


- This proposal asks for money to keep funding RPC providers for one year.
- RPC services help people use the Kusama network and its parachains.
- The total cost is $112,608, which is less than before.
- Providers must bid to offer these services, and the best ones get chosen.
- If they don't meet quality standards, they can lose funding.
- This system has helped lower costs and reduce extra funding requests.
- More information is available in a linked document.

Funding for Public RPC Providers via Bounty 25