$1M is a substantial ask at this phase, especially for a startup focused on standardizing a data set. The proposed team structure — such as assigning two people per role at the onset — feels excessive and misaligned with the lean, resource-conscious approach typically expected in early-stage projects. A more streamlined structure could achieve the same goals efficiently, for example:

1x Data Lead (CTO): Define strategy and oversee the technical roadmap.
1x Data Engineer: Build and maintain the necessary data pipelines, sufficient for initial requirements.
1x Data Analyst: Validate, analyze, and derive insights from the data.
1x Site Reliability Engineer (optional): Manage infrastructure stability if necessary.

This leaner team ensures resources are allocated wisely while delivering measurable results. Overstaffing at this stage risks inflating costs without a proportional increase in output.

It’s important to highlight that only 1/4th of the proposed funding is allocated to infrastructure costs, meaning the vast majority of the request is intended to build out the team for your for-profit company. For context, in the startup world, early-stage or seed funding is typically focused on proving the concept, building a minimum viable product (MVP), and demonstrating market fit—often with a small, scrappy team working efficiently to achieve maximum impact. Budgets at this stage are usually lean and prioritized toward direct value creation.

In contrast, this proposal asks for a substantial allocation toward staffing multiple roles, many of which appear redundant for an early-stage project. Such an approach is unusual for a startup seeking initial funding, especially when using community resources. Given the lack of a proven track record or a clear roadmap for significantly advancing Polkadot or delivering tangible ecosystem benefits, this funding request seems premature and disproportionate.

Hiring and scaling should be done prudently, with the goal of achieving milestones that justify further investment. Allocating such a large portion of community funds to team building—before demonstrating measurable progress or validating the project’s usefulness—risks misusing resources without delivering results.

Given these concerns, a more cautious approach — such as reducing redundant positions and implementing phased funding tied to the proposed milestone achievements — would be more appropriate than requesting 100% upfront before any work is completed. This ensures accountability and provides the opportunity to demonstrate progress before committing additional community resources.

This feedback is shared with the hope of helping refine the proposal and increasing its chances of success while being mindful of the community's interests.

Though my vote is tied to KusDAO which is currently NAY, I'm very much in support of this proposal.

My view is the service offered his is "Polkadot Interpreter" for the rest of the Industry. The unique structure of our ecosystem makes it difficult to fit into the "Standard" data that is presented on high-traffic dashboards.

This team with a strong track record with treasury, solid partner in Parity Data, and the technical expertise to run their own nodes - I believe - is perfect to act as Interpreter for us and share our story with the broader industry in terms they understand.

$1M definitely gives sticker shock by my current position is that this is a reasonable price to pay to solve a problem that has not only held us back but actually made Polkadot look MUCH WORSE than it is.