diff --git a/docs/proposals/202005_scalable-rule-storage.md b/docs/proposals/202005_scalable-rule-storage.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..b350bfc8c77
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/proposals/202005_scalable-rule-storage.md
@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+---
+title: Scalable Rule Storage
+type: proposal
+menu: proposals
+status: approved
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+There is no way to scale rule evaluation and storage today except functionally
+sharding rules onto multiple instances of the `thanos rule` component. However,
+we have already solved scaling storage of time-series across multiple
+processes: `thanos receive`.
+
+To scale rule evaluations and storage this proposal proposes to allow
+the `thanos rule` component to have a stateless mode, storing results of
+queries by sending it to a `thanos receive` hashring instead of storing them
+locally.
+
+## Motivation
+
+A few large rules can create a significant amount of resulting time-series,
+which limits the scalability of Thanos Rule, as it uses a single embedded TSDB.
+
+Additionally, scaling out the rule component in terms of rule evaluations
+causes further defragmentation of TSDB blocks, as multiple rule instances
+produce hard to deduplicate samples. While doable with vertical compaction, it
+might cause some operational complexity and unnecessary load on the system.
+
+## Goals
+
+Allow scaling storage and execution of rule evaluations.
+
+## Verification
+
+* Run all rule component e2e tests with new mode as well.
+
+## Proposal
+
+Allow specifying one of the following flags:
+
+* `--remote-write`
+* `--remote-write.config` or `--remote-write.config-file` flag following the same scheme as
+[`--query.config`, and
+`--query.config-file`](https://thanos.io/components/rule.md/#query-api)
+* `--tenant-label-name` which label-value to use to set the tenant to be communicated to the receive component
+
+If any of these are specified the ruler would run a stateless mode, without
+local storage, and instead writing samples to the configured remote server,
+which must implement the `storepb.WritableStore` gRPC service.
+
+## Alternatives
+
+Continue to allow spreading load only by functionally sharding rules.
+
+## Work Plan
+
+Implement functionality alongside the existing architecture of the rule
+component.
+
+## Open questions
+
+### Multi tenancy model
+
+This it stands this proposal does not cover any multi tenancy aspects of the
+receive component there are two strategies that we could go with:
+
+* Have a configurable label that determines the tenant in requests.
+* Change the receive component to instead of using a header to determine the
+  tenant use a label of the series being written.
+
+As the first exists, this proposal will continue with this approach and
+potentially reevaluate in the future.
+
+### Removal of embedded TSDB
+
+For a start this functionality will be implemented alongside the current
+embedded TSDB. Once experience with this new mode has been gathered, it may be
+reevaluated to remove the embedded TSDB, but no changes planned for now.
+Alternatively the receive component could also be embedded into the rule
+component in an attempt to minimize code paths, but retain functionality.