I find the 1 Million ask too much. you need to look for other income streams.

I am switching to abstain after further consideration. I have long been noting the issue of excessive funding of wallets, each costing the treasury over $1M yearly, with some teams receiving well above this amount including marketing budgets, and this case with $1M for 8 months of work is only adding to the problem. I have also advocated the necessity of a more sustainable funding model for the wallets since DV Cohort I, and I am not sure whether wallet teams are considering alternative funding methods and their sustainability. There seems to be spending inertia that is not delivering proportional RoI for the community.

And regarding the details of the proposal, the mobile wallet repository has not received a single commit over the last year, and from the repository README we understand it is a wrapper around the extension. The main development appears to be happening in the SubWallet-Extension repository. The proposal states 12 full-time software engineers, but looking at the repository, there are only 7 developers with over 100 non-merge commits during the proposal period (Aug'24 - Mar'25), and these are bluezdot (415), S2kael (266), Frenkie Nguyen (193), tunghp2002 (189), Lee Wong (161), Thiendekaco (143), and PDTnhah (127). There are four more developers with fewer than 100 commits: nampc (68), AnhMTV (48), dominhquang (47), and Dung Nguyen (3). Therefore, it's reasonable to consider that the project has roughly 7 full-time developers contributing to the extension repository. It is not possible for the community to evaluate whether these contributors are working on SubWallet's efforts for other chains, such as Cardano and Bitcoin, and this makes the budget for 12 full-time developers questionable. The budget also states 5 growth and business specialists, and since SubWallet is a private company, I'm not sure whether these efforts should be covered by the Polkadot treasury.

In my opinion, we should ideally have a bounty-like structure for wallets, or RFPs, rather than teams arbitrarily charging retroactively without prior consultation with the community. At this point, I'm voting to abstain, closer to nay, in favour of a more sustainable funding model for valuable ecosystem wallets such as SubWallet.

We think SubWallet is a good alternative to Talisman and Nova. We believe it will be essential for all wallets (including Talisman and Nova) to enter maintenance mode at some point (no need for new features).

SubWallet has continuously delivered for Polkadot over the past few years, as well as is a great presence in SEA.

I’m generally supportive of the initiative/team and appreciate the greatly reduced ask, especially considering that comparable projects in the ecosystem have received significantly more funding from the treasury in the past. Moving forward, all wallet solutions should cut back on treasury reliance and start to explore more sustainable business models imo.

I hope wallets can reduce their budget and focus more on development than lobby. Abstain for now.

I recognize the hard work that a team like Subwallet has been doing in Polkadot, especially in the SEA region.
However, I am a little concerned about the high cost that the proposal ends up posing, so I am in Abstain.

Great team that we should continue supporting. Big Aye from us.

We should support the largest wallets in the ecosystem. We also appreciate the team's approach of actively communicating the details of the proposal in advance and adjusting them based on the feedback received.

This is a very good example on why similar proposals should be funded around the same time, we have funded both Talisman and Nova Wallet with similar proposals. Now, in my opinion arguing that since we funded them we SHOULDN'T fund SubWallet since it's now too much money spent on wallets or we SHOULD fund them since Talisman and Nova were funded doesn't hold water for the same reason. We really need to have dedicated months for similar, especially high budget, proposals so that holders can evaluate the money being spent more clearly.