# \[Discussion\] Service Provider Framework **URL:** \ **Category:** Voting Rationale & Governance Calls\ **Created:** [June 26, 2023, 9:09am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/discussion-service-provider-framework/15071 "2023-06-26T09:09:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![jengajojo](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/jengajojo/32/7952_2.png) [@jengajojo](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/jengajojo)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2023, 9:09am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/discussion-service-provider-framework/15071/1 "2023-06-26T09:09:29Z")
## Summary We have seen two service [[1](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-3-non-constitutional-fund-the-arbitrum-grants-framework-proposal-milestone-1/14976) , [2](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/delegated-domain-allocation-by-questbook-arbitrum-dao-grants/14688)] providers make pitches to start a grants program and there has been a lot of discussion on the details. Perhaps it’s easier for us as a DAO to agree on a neutral **’ Service Provider Framework ’** so that we can be more efficient with this process and allow the DAO to measure the performance of providers on neutral terms ## Overview While the conversation started out with grants, there could be a diverse array of services the DAO could need and this framework should be **domain agnostic and comprehensive**. These are initial prompts to kick off the discussion on what information the DAO should request from each proposal: 1. Service Provider Onboarding: 2. Service Provider Offboarding: 3. Duration and Scope: 4. Past Work and Experience: 5. Cost Breakdown and Payment: 6. Performance and Quality Assurance: 7. Intellectual Property: 8. Dispute Resolution: 9. Continuous Evaluation and Improvement: These are just some points chatGPT helped me come up with, but this is just suggestions. What do you all think? ---
**Author:** ![DisruptionJoe](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/disruptionjoe/32/1084_2.png) [@DisruptionJoe](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/DisruptionJoe)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2023, 2:21pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/discussion-service-provider-framework/15071/2 "2023-06-26T14:21:59Z")
I think this is moving in the right direction, however, I’m not sure how it is any different that what [AIP - 3 [Non-Constitutional] Fund the Arbitrum Grants Framework Proposal Milestone 1 - #9 by Frisson](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-3-non-constitutional-fund-the-arbitrum-grants-framework-proposal-milestone-1/14976/9) is posting. Most of that proposal is to design the best way to answer all of the questions you put above. It seems that you’re considering service providers to be receiving funds that are not “grants”. Is this correct? Perhaps the glossary is undefined so we talk past each other in some ways. I’d consider “Program Managers” to be “Service providers” which are given responsibility for directing funds to provide an outcome for the community. The issue I’ve seen across DAOs is that the DAO delegates don’t have time to do the above work. That brings us to the chicken and egg problem which the AIP-3 is attempting to solve. ---
**Author:** ![jengajojo](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/jengajojo/32/7952_2.png) [@jengajojo](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/jengajojo)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2023, 10:10am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/discussion-service-provider-framework/15071/3 "2023-07-03T10:10:56Z")
You bring good points @DisruptionJoe a. On the point of delegates doing governance work, I’d like to see if @Frisson and the Tally team have any stats they want to share about governance participation in DAOs across time. In my experience, DAOs which do not compensate delegates for actively participating in governance often are not well governed. Therefore I’d encourage the community think about governance incentives from the getgo. I wonder if the foundation has any plans here? CC:@stonecoldpat b. On the point about service provider fees vs grants, they could be the same thing, and ideally the pluralistic grants framework would be able to identify the best providers to give repeated grants to, but till then this remains a test awaiting experimental results. Finally, we have seen more proposals such as > [@Proposal: Accelerating Arbitrum - leveraging Camelot as an ecosystem hub to support native builders](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-accelerating-arbitrum-leveraging-camelot-as-an-ecosystem-hub-to-support-native-builders/15116): > > Title Accelerating Arbitrum - leveraging Camelot as an ecosystem hub to support native builders Non-Constitutional Proposal Authors [Iron Boots](https://twitter.com/SirBootsOfIron) (BD Lead), [Myrddin](https://twitter.com/0xmyrddin) (Dev Lead) Abstract This post proposes granting 1.5M ARB per month to Camelot DAO for the next 6 months to fund liquidity incentives for Arbitrum-focused projects on Camelot, including the onboarding of new and multi-chain protocols entering the ecosystem. Camelot strives to support the native ecosystem through collaborative relat… > [@Proposal: Building the Future of NFTs: The Rarible Protocol - Arbitrum Integration Proposal](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-building-the-future-of-nfts-the-rarible-protocol-arbitrum-integration-proposal/15091): > > Building the Future of NFTs: The Rarible Protocol - Arbitrum Integration Proposal Non-Constitutional Abstract The Rari Foundation is submitting a proposal to drive growth in the Arbitrum NFT ecosystem. The proposal involves integrating Arbitrum L2 with the open-source [Rarible protocol](https://rarible.org/), which currently supports the [Rarible](https://rarible.com/) NFT marketplace, that will enable NFT-based application development on Arbitrum. Additionally, the proposal includes plans to build an Arbitrum NFT community marketplace. Th… requesting funds over a fixed time period. All these proposals want to provide different services to the DAO and more will follow asking for funds with different deliverables. It’s in the interest of the DAO to agree on a framework in order to evaluate each provider in a domain agnostic manner.