Too Rushed Proposal IMO
**
This is what i get from HSPs-001, and what im thinking Right now: im Voting AGAINTS this.
Process Flow
Idea - Before drafting, authors should discuss their idea on the governance forum to gauge interest and refine the concept.
Draft Submission - Author writes the proposal following the HSP template and submits it as a PR to the https://github.com/houseofstake/proposals repository. Once properly formatted, it receives an HSP number and is merged as Draft.
Community Discussion - The Draft HSP is discussed on the governance forum. Authors incorporate feedback and iterate on the proposal.
Review - When the author believes the proposal is ready, they move it to Review status. This signals that the proposal is complete and ready for formal evaluation.
Last Call - An editor moves the proposal to Last Call, setting a 14-day deadline. This is the final opportunity for community feedback before voting.
Voting - Proposal proceeds to an on-chain vote by veNEAR holders. Voting period is 14 days (this is a parameter on the voting contract which can only be changed by the security council). The proposal must meet quorum and approval thresholds defined in the House of Stake governance documents.
Final/Rejected - Based on vote results, the proposal becomes Final or Rejected.
The initiative, which first @SalTernullo proposed on 23 January, has not addressed several community concerns.
Then, on 6 February (exactly 14 days later) it was launched by the HoS administrator, without properly accounting for the time required for community discussions, reviews, and final calls within that same 14-day window.
I think some papers need to be addressed first, and we need proper discussions before implementing any changes to our treasury, especially regarding Yearly Budgets.
I feel uncertain about this. On the one hand, I really relate with the comments saying that the base layer infrastructure should be paid more than the âsuperfluousâ infrastructure built on top of it.
But on the other hand, Intents is kind of the claim to fame right now. Without NEAR Intents, the tech wouldnât be half of what it is.
I donât really know if there is a game theory issue here with having a layer that isnât the base layer be paid or valued higher. It feels intuitively off, even though investing in NEAR Intents is a really good idea. We should double down on the products that have product market fit, which NEAR Intents definitely does.
Gm, @SVRN , congratualations on the first month completion and the great performance report by @AK_HoG .
I wanted to follow up with you, to see how your G2M strategy is moving forward to gradually on-board the remaining 11 MPC node operators? In your comments below, you mentioned that you would be posting the selection criteria for the new MPC node providers and also to see if you had any updates of any new MPC node providers that will be going online shortly? Tks!
GM SVRN AK_HoG. Congratulations on bootstrapping a successful initiative.
I noticed that of the 9/21 MPC operators, there are now 8/21.
We at Vitwit have been eager to participate and contribute to running an MPC node. Vitwit has been running validator and relayer infrastructure since 2018, for institutions, VC funds, and for ourselves. We have a proven track record of exceptional uptime alongside being the first responder to any mishap for partner ecosystems.
We are also one of the leading open-source contributor teams in Web3.
What would be the steps or the best way to share a proposal/Due Diligence to be a participant?
Hi @vitwit ,
Thanks for reaching out, and for your interest in joining the MPC operator set! Your teamâs track record is indeed relevant to the kind of operational expertise weâre looking for.
Could you please send a brief email to ops@houseofstake.org. From there, weâll share the DDQ and walk you through the onboarding and evaluation process.
