# \[ARFC\] Onboard New Risk Service Provider **URL:** \ **Category:** General\ **Created:** [April 12, 2024, 7:28am UTC](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-onboard-new-risk-service-provider/17348 "2024-04-12T07:28:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 4
**Author:** ![midapple](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/governance.aave.com/midapple/32/5221_2.png) [@midapple](https://governance.aave.com/u/midapple)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2024, 10:21pm UTC](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-onboard-new-risk-service-provider/17348/4 "2024-04-12T22:21:33Z")
I have said this before and I will say it again: Proposed budget should not be a consideration in the voting. Aave is profitable as is and the difference between #100-200k is miniscule (especially when we are spending millions on Merit with much less oversight on how that is actually spent). Let’s just have the fee set to $400k and evaluate the three on their own merits. > [@\[Temp Check\] Allez Labs risk provider proposal to Aave DAO](https://governance.aave.com/t/temp-check-allez-labs-risk-provider-proposal-to-aave-dao/17116/8): > > Scope of work is useful to see but as with all service providers and particularly risk, scope is quickly ignored because when work needs to be done, it will get done. Either through an existing service provider or elsewhere. The price of service provider should not be a factor in deciding who the second risk provider is. I believe this is a place where @AaveLabs @ACI or @bgdlabs should simply set a price for the 6 month engagement so that prospective service providers do not get into a bidding … --- _[View the full topic](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-onboard-new-risk-service-provider/17348)._