We approve of the changes the proposer has made. We appreciate that the amount is divided into three scheduled payments. We were already supportive of the previous proposal (1688).

Chainsafe maintains a professional team with expertise in Polkadot.

I do not have the knowledge to evaluate in depth the level and quality of the contributions made by the proponent, so I prefer to vote Abstain.

Although I'm confident that ChainSafe is perfectly equipped with the merit to deliver, I find the shift to treasury funding for the development and maintenance of the Polkadot SDK a premature move that requires better preparation, wider community discussion, and consensus.

Thanks for the team's contributions, but maybe it's a better way to join fellowship.

Not my area of expertise so I’d rather abstain than make an uninformed decision.

Fellowship! why not.

This would be better routed via a Parity SLA or Fellowship pathways. We don't support this large treasury-funded engagement to work inside the Polkadot-SDK.

Lately the treasury has been made to bear the brunt of the development cost of many SDKs, some of which are perceived as must-haves while my impression is that many are "nice to have but not used a lot". I would like to see the technical fellowship take some leadership here to either have a second circle of developers to accommodate these instead.