We proposed a similar solution to that mentioned by @lolmcshizz and @tom.stakeplus under the “Proposed Long Term Solution” section of our most recent proposal OnFinality Funded Polkadot RPC Services Treasury Proposal - Google Docs
From our point of view, the greatest advantage of Polkadot is the network effects and support that it brings. Funding from the Polkadot treasury will be a holistic solution that will allow us to support as many parachains as possible.
“Teams need to coordinate/negotiate with all sorts of partners (block explorers, rpc node providers, wallets, other parachains). This slows down innovation for Kusama.” - Interlay
Multiple parachains have privately and publicly affirmed that one of the biggest challenges is dealing with all the tertiary providers needed to run a production parachain (RPC nodes, block explorers, indexers, governance pages, wallets integrations and more). Parachains are expected to integrate and manage all of these vendors, taking valuable time away from protocol innovation. These providers all waste a surprising amount of time making corresponding treasury proposals and managing wallets of multiple tokens to a large number of chains. It’s bad enough that we estimate that we alone spend weeks worth of FTE on accounting, submitting treasury proposals, engaging with the community, monitoring wallets for payments, liquidating tokens in a way that minimises market impact, and then account for all of the above actions again, each and every quarter.
We propose that in the long term, we create a new “Parachain Infrastructure Bounty”, that provides basic public services for all active parachins for both ecosystems. The aim is to make the ecosystem more harmonious, unify processes and tools, speed up development progress, and will help all new teams get started.
Ideas floating around suggest that each parachain gets a certain amount of base level of funding for common good infrastructure. Some even speculate that there could be funding for each category of public good infrastructure, and they can only allocate that funding to any infra providers of their choosing that are part of the bounty. Whether we allow parachains to choose what providers to allocate this funding, or allow providers to compete for it (and on what basis), is still unclear. For example, a parachain could split the funding across multiple providers, or allocate it to a single provider. Any unused funding would likely need to be refunded back to the treasury.
But setting this bounty up and communicating with the large number of stakeholders will take a long time. At this stage, we expect at least 5 RPC providers, 4 wallets, 3 block explorers, 2 indexers, and 2 governance tools will want to be party to this bounty if it encompasses all “public good infrastructure”. We expect that the process of consulting all stakeholders, negotiating the terms of the bounty, finding curators, communicating with both communities and then submitting a proposal will take at least a quarter and will require a large amount of effort from our team and others.
Finally, we don’t have precedent yet for this kind of funding agreement, especially since the community voted to stop funding the last infrastructure bounty less than 5 months ago. There is a very real likelihood that the community will vote against this bounty, after considerable effort is made to set it up with over 10 stakeholders involved. There is a lot of risk here and it’s hard to see any single actor investing the time to set this up without a precedent or previous approval from the community.
Note that proposal succeeded so we’re about to begin the process to setup said “Parachain Infrastructure Bounty” (or whatever we call it), i’ll drop a link to a new channel that we can use to collaborate on organising this here soon.