- Referenda/
- Medium Spender/
- #1668/
SQD (fka Subsquid) - Public Data Indexing Infrastructure for Polkadot and Kusama (Q4 2024)
- 0.0%
- 0.0%
Threshold
- 0.0%
JAM DAO votes AYE on this Proposal
We support this proposal based on the demonstrated importance of Subsquid’s SQD Archives as shared infrastructure serving a wide range of ecosystem projects—from wallets and dApps to APIs and governance tools.
That said, our support comes with constructive concerns:
The $308,704 USDC requested for just one quarter of operations is significant. The proposal could better justify this figure by offering detailed breakdowns of engineering, maintenance, and operational costs.
While critical infrastructure can command significant costs, the long-term sustainability of this funding model, heavily reliant on the Treasury, needs discussion. We encourage future proposals to outline paths toward cost sharing, ecosystem contributions, or tiered service models.
In summary, this AYE vote is in recognition of essential services rendered, but with the expectation of more granular transparency and a roadmap toward financial resilience in the future.
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is NAY.
The Medium Spender track requires 50% quorum (at least 5 aye votes) and simple majority of non-abstain votes 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 zero aye and two nay votes from ten available members, with four members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
Members critiqued the proposal, acknowledging Subsquid’s technical merits while questioning its alignment with a more commercially driven model. They argued that the costs requested were excessive, given that users already paid for the service and alternative indexing tools existed. Some believed the treasury’s existing funding for archived data was sufficient, and others suggested that higher beneficiary contribution was warranted. Concerns were raised about the sizeable quarterly budget and the need for a revised support and pricing model, with several members favoring a restructure of the contract between the network and Subsquid to better reflect the service’s commercial nature.
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
TruthDAO votes NAY
1. The proposal lacks a clear budget plan, and the maintenance cost for a single quarter is too high.
2. The project is already generating revenue within the ecosystem, and the labor cost is excessive — the budget needs to be reduced.
See more feedback here.
📖Truth DAO Governance Statement
🗳️ Delegate
Hello,
It's a good proposal, but the request seems high. What areas of the budget do you think could be optimized?
PolkaWorld votes NAY
We appreciate the continued work and effort put into maintaining and supporting the network. That said, we have some concerns regarding the scale and clarity of the proposed budget for Q4, which totals approximately $310,000. This includes cloud infrastructure and engineering costs — with $155,664 allocated to engineering and maintenance (including tax), and around $135,000 to server and network expenses.
From our perspective, a $100/hour rate for ongoing maintenance appears to be on the higher end. For reference, other Treasury-funded maintenance proposals — such as Referendum #1640 — have operated at a much lower rate (around $23/hour) while still ensuring reliable delivery.
We also believe that the “Engineers & Maintenance” cost would benefit from more detailed breakdowns — for example, how many engineers are covered by this budget and what specific tasks or responsibilities are included.
We share this feedback with respect and in the spirit of constructive discussion.
You can view our full feedback [here].