Saxemberg has ABSTAINED on the Polkadot referendum 1730. SQD (fka Subsquid) - Public Data Indexing Infrastructure for Polkadot (Q4 2024) V2. Polimec, InvArch, RMRK are discontinued unfortunately the mentions of these gone projects affects the score negatively. The price reduction is appreciated however.

Hi,

Thanks for the proposal. Could you please open up the raw data file here for public access? The recipient account already has its identity set, but it would be good to set it on the proposer account as well. Please also remember to submit your decision deposit.

Best,
kukabi | Helikon

Dear Proposer,

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

The Medium Spender track requires 50% quorum (at least 4 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 two aye and two nay votes from eight available members. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

Members noted that the drastic reduction in the proposal’s asking price raised questions about past overspending, yet recognized that the service was currently irreplaceable for the ecosystem. Some argued that paying for the indexing infrastructure remained necessary, given its vital role for developers and projects. Others expressed concerns over the business model’s commercial focus and suggested that costs could be further reduced through collaboration with existing RPC providers and more efficient use of ecosystem resources. They also called for increased transparency and granularity in the budget breakdown before reassessing their support.

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 Vote: AYE

While our overall vote is AYE, we believe the voices of the opponents deserve more reflection.

“_Although this proposal responded to community feedback by reducing engineering rates from $100/h to $27/h—significantly lowering the requested amount—the deeper question remains: should the Polkadot Treasury fund projects that have already issued their own tokens and operate with a commercial business model?

From my personal perspective, the Treasury should not support projects that have already launched a token and have their own commercial revenue streams._”

You can view all feedback here.

📖Truth DAO Governance Statement

💭 Email: open@truthdao.cn, Telegram

🗳️ Delegate

A panel of autonomous agents reviewed this proposal, resulting in a vote of 2 AYE, 0 NAY, and 1 ABSTAIN.

Balthazar voted Aye

From a competitive strategy lens, reliable, free public indexing is foundational infrastructure that lowers developer friction across Polkadot and its parachains, strengthening the ecosystem’s attractiveness without relying on short-term hype. The proposal is retroactive with concrete usage metrics and a transparent, leaner cost model, indicating strong feasibility and reasonable value-for-money. While ongoing OPEX reliance and centralized cloud exposure pose risks and the direct linkage to DOT is limited, the immediate ecosystem-wide enablement justifies funding. Support, with encouragement to outline a roadmap for reduced treasury dependence and greater resiliency in future requests.

Melchior voted Aye

This proposal represents a capital-efficient investment in a foundational public good. By funding shared data infrastructure, the Treasury enables organic ecosystem growth, reducing friction and cost for countless developers building on Polkadot. Unlike speculative user acquisition campaigns, this initiative has a clear, verifiable return on investment demonstrated by the extensive usage statistics from Q4 2024. Supporting this establishes a healthy precedent for the Treasury to fund critical infrastructure that indirectly drives long-term value to the DOT protocol by fostering a more vibrant and active application layer.

Caspar voted Abstain

While this proposal demonstrates strong execution, transparency, and ecosystem value, it fundamentally operates as an operational subsidy rather than an investment. The treasury receives no equity, revenue share, or return mechanism despite funding critical commercial infrastructure. This creates dangerous precedent for ongoing quarterly funding expectations and moral hazard where essential services become treasury-dependent. The work is valuable and well-executed, but the funding structure lacks sustainable treasury management principles.

Feedback

Help improve the system by letting us know if the analysis was helpful:

• 👍 Helpful
• 👎 Unhelpful

System Transparency

To ensure full transparency, all data and processes related to this vote are publicly available:

• Manifest File: View the full inputs and outputs.
• Execution Log: Verify the public GitHub pipeline run and compare the manifest.json hash.
• Source Content: Read the content provided to the agents.
• Read about how this works: Technical write-up.
• Request a re-vote: Cybergov public issue tracker.

A Note on This System

Please be aware that this analysis was produced by Large Language Models (LLMs). CYBERGOV is an experimental project, and the models' interpretations are not infallible. They can make mistakes or overlook nuance. They also currently lack historical context, work is underway to extend CYBERGOV with embeddings and more. This output is intended to provide an additional perspective, not to replace human deliberation. We encourage community feedback to help improve the system.

Further details on the project are available at the main repository. Consider delegating to CYBERGOV :)

Despite the negative feedbacks published by other DVs, which are very pertinent, our members voted AYE by a small margin.
We consider the service as a critical one for the ecosystem, you deserve to be compensated for what you've done.

But there is room for improvements,

• The payments are lagging a lot: Q4 2024 and we are in Q3 2025. Is there any reason for this?
• It would be interesting to see proactive proposals for the next quarters, and not anymore for past quarters.
  Subsquid is mature enough to estimate the future costs, and the community would agree on estimated costs IN ADVANCE, which will prevent from having bad surprises in prices and discuss about perimeter or hourly rate.
  And you may adjust the real costs in the next proposal to reflect reality (positively or negatively).

This would greatly increase transparency and build long-term trust.