I'd like to see more impact given the request to retroactively fund at a $130/hr rate. Alternatively it would be preferable to put up a proposal for forward funding so that the community can co-shape a proposal that can bring growth to the network.

We think it is important to support ecosystem agents who are building tools.

I'm not sure we really need this. There are tons of Android and iOS app templates. The key issue is how developers can interact with substrate chains which I believe there are already many stuff.

I share the same concerns that other DAO members have raised.
What is the need we have in Polkadot for something like this?
Do the proponents have a projection of how many teams will work with these tools?
I do not disparage the effort being made by Pluto, but it is necessary to be clear about the scope that these proposals will have for the ecosystem.

I want to support this retroactive ask, but the hourly rate should be adjusted lower to reflect the current stage of the project, which is still unproven. Expenses for items like computers or phones should not be covered by the treasury, as these are basic tools builders are expected to already have or fund themselves. Please adjust and re-submit.

I share the concerns regarding hourly rates, and charging the treasury for equipment and subscription costs. The framework is a good addition to the ecosystem clearly, but the conditions should be revised.

We appreciate PlutoFramework as a useful addition to Polkadot’s developer toolbox. However, we have reservations about the high hourly rate and the need to cover equipment costs. Also, is there a clear demand or widespread potential use? We could support this proposal in the future under different conditions.

Treating the treasury as a capital equipment grant AND charging a 50% higher hourly rate than the ecosystem baseline is a very bold move.

We think this is something that deserves a chance to be funded in the future. A proactive proposal is definitely more ideal, but in this case we support.