PolkaWorld has voted NAY on this proposal.

Setting aside the broader question of whether storage is a critical and urgent need in the Polkadot ecosystem — and whether this initiative overlaps with existing solutions like Crust or Filecoin — we believe the salary level proposed by the team is simply too high.

Polkadot Treasury, as a public funding source, should not passively accept flat-rate pricing. There must be room for discussion and accountability on budget justification, especially when the community is funding the work.

While we recognize the technical complexity and depth of the proposal, we would like to raise a concern regarding the cost structure — specifically the rate of $25,000 per FTE, which implies an annual compensation of $300,000 per engineer.

This figure is significantly higher than typical Web3 developer salaries, even in high-cost countries. For context, according to Web3.Career’s latest data:

•	🇳🇴 Norway: ~$85,000/year
•	🇸🇪 Sweden: ~$75,000–80,000/year
•	🇺🇸 United States (highest): ~$130,000–140,000/year

Given that the team is based in Finland, where compensation expectations are likely in line with or below those of Sweden and Norway, the proposed rate appears disproportionately high.

Moreover, this compensation level is equivalent to or exceeds that of CTOs in most Web3 organizations, yet it is being applied uniformly across all engineers in the proposal.

We believe it’s important for Treasury-funded public goods to maintain both technical excellence and cost efficiency. We respectfully request the team to revisit the rate and consider aligning it more closely with regional benchmarks to better serve the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem.

Thank you for your reply, and we appreciate your transparency in explaining the broader cost structure involved in running a business — we understand that operating a company involves more than just paying salaries. It also includes supporting personnel, health and social security contributions, sick leave, vacations, national holidays, training, replacements, and taxes. We fully acknowledge this reality and respect the complexity behind your operations.

However, our concern is not about undervaluing your work or expecting “cheap labor.” Rather, it’s about ensuring that any project funded by the Polkadot Treasury maintains a compensation structure that is reasonable and well-justified, especially when viewed in the context of local market benchmarks and clear role-based differentiation.

We understand that running a company involves a margin and overhead. But it would greatly help if a more detailed breakdown could be provided to justify the FTE cost of $25,000 per month per team member. Is this the average cost across the team? Does it reflect different roles such as engineering, project management, or administrative support? At present, the flat-rate structure raises concerns about the lack of performance-based or responsibility-based distinctions.

Moreover, we believe that the public salary data we referenced already includes the types of costs you mentioned — because most Web3 professionals are employed within companies, and these statistics inherently reflect the full employment cost, including social benefits and leave. These data sets represent the actual market conditions for Web3 talent across different regions. That’s why we feel the proposed rates are significantly above the norm — even for high-cost countries, let alone Finland.

We are not questioning the value of your product itself. But as stewards of public funds, we must ask:
“Is the cost proportionate to the actual value delivered? Is this an efficient allocation of ecosystem resources?”

We sincerely hope your team can share more background on the internal cost structure and consider adjusting the compensation model to be more in line with industry norms and local benchmarks. This would not only contribute to the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem but also strengthen the community’s confidence in the value your work brings.

Again, thank you for engaging constructively with feedback — we truly believe this kind of open and honest dialogue is what makes the OpenGov process healthy and meaningful.