I'll add my thoughts on this in the discussion section below, however with the treasury at an all time low and when Polkadot is on the cusp of a large update as well as a new platform that will need a relatively large marketing campaign to be successful, the opportunity cost of continuing to foot Hydrations's operations are just too high, especially with a 5M DOT subsidiary. With how much money they've been getting from the treasury, should Polkadot just be a partner at this point and own some of Hydration?

Unless there's a change in the scope with a repayment built in, this is too rich and doesn't provide the value commensurate with the cost.

I share the same view as the rest of the fellow DAO members. I believe that at this point of subsidies, a repayment agreement should be reached, so that Polkadot's Treasury can also be benefited.

We have known the Hydration team for years. They’ve been building since the early days of Polkadot with commitment, even though it was not the TOP3 project at the very beginning. Pushing forward, delivering. Their UX is one of the best in DeFi, as well as the innovative & unique features. Their governance has one of the highest participation rates, if not the highest in the Polkadot ecosystem. But the proposal itself lacks data, projections, ROI scenarios, and more info/clarity about HOLLAR stablecoin launch. This is essential to know for such a large requested amount. Also, there are almost no responses from the Hydration team in the discussion. We want to see more. We want to believe this can become THE Polkadot success story. Something that brings new users from other ecosystems, new investments & real momentum. And maybe it can. But before we give the green light, we need answers and a bit more time. For now, we are abstaining with our vote, but can reconsider later on, based on additional data/feedback.

The request is too much and I'm not sure about the ROI.

You can change my mind but i feel that giving 25+ million to any project to "incentivize" users is no good. I could see a token swap so the DOT family can have some control of that would be great. Swapping DOT for HDX would do that, so Dot holders could have the chance to Vote on Hydration Governance.

I, like most in the Polkadot ecosystem, value the Hydration team’s contributions. However, the proposal’s large funding request, combined with its timing, threatens responsible Treasury management. If this passes as-is, it could significantly limit available funds for other initiatives. Multiple high-value proposals close to or exceeding ~$1M have recently been approved, are currently under vote, or are expected to go on-chain shortly. Not to mention several incoming bounty refills like the MB etc., so it’s a matter of balancing priorities and ensuring long-term sustainability imo. Additionally, the proposed Gigadot incentives appear to mainly benefit advanced HDX investors, offering little value to most DOT holders or even most power users (builders etc), limiting the proposal’s ecosystem impact. Past Treasury spends for these types of initiatives seem to provide only short-term gains for HDX users, with no clear boost to DOT’s price or lasting investor interest. Further, the lack of a repayment plan or clear metrics showing direct benefits to Polkadot and DOT holders is a major issue. Why not craft a simple slide deck for the Polkadot community to break down the proposal and post it on the Polkadot forums before submitting it on-chain? This would help everyone, from casual users to investors, understand the key details and stakes of the vote. The minimal to nonexistent community engagement prior to this proposal’s on-chain submission caught many by surprise, missing a chance for valuable input. The bigger the ask and impact to the eco, the more reason everyone should get chance to weigh in before it goes on-chain and is put up for a vote. I urge the proposers to revise with a smaller ask, a Treasury repayment structure, and data proving inclusive benefits for all DOT holders.