Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is AYE.

The Medium Spender track requires 50% quorum and simple majority of non-abstain voters according to our voting policy v0.2, and any referendum in which the majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote. This proposal has received five aye and three nay votes from ten members, with one member abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

The voters expressed mixed opinions on the referendum regarding Subsquid's funding request. Supporters highlighted the importance of Subsquid's services for public chains and the need for critical infrastructure within the ecosystem. They emphasized the alignment of this funding with past requests. Conversely, some voters opposed the proposal, arguing that Subsquid should implement a fee structure for its services to become self-sustaining and questioning the high annual cost, especially given the limited coverage of certain parachains. One voter chose to abstain, seeking further expert analysis.

The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.

Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.

Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate

📅 Book Office Hours
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate

PolkaWorld has voted NAY on this proposal.

1. We do not consider this to be a public infrastructure project, as the team has already issued a token and is charging ecosystem projects like Polkassembly for services. Additionally, other infrastructure providers such as SubQuery are offering similar services to the Polkadot ecosystem without requesting comparable funding from the Treasury.

2. Some of the listed “free” services are questionable — for example, the Rococo network has already been deprecated, so we’re unsure why it’s still included. Developers in the ecosystem have also indicated that most of the other listed chains receive very little actual usage. If the proposal could clearly separate the archive data used for paid services from the archive data provided to Polkadot as a free public good, it would give the community a more transparent and intuitive comparison. This would help avoid confusion about the scope and beneficiaries of the services.

3. Given that this proposal focuses more on maintenance than on active development, the hourly rate of $100/hour appears relatively high.