Drastic cut in the asking makes me think we have been overpaying on this up to this point... still what they are offering to the ecosystem is not replaceable right now.

I agree that it is incredible how the proposal was cut back so much.
However, at this point, I believe we need to pay for the service because it is necessary.

• I think SQD can make collaboration with RPC providers like IBP to reduce cost.
• I don't think the business model make enough sense to me. It's more a business than an infura.

There should be further granularity in all line items in the budget breakdown @ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Rj_-4KqM2BZ7pHptIBryLZqcOmiQqi7PdFjBLcN25w4/edit?gid=466566330#gid=466566330. For instance, if any of these line items are due to archive nodes, SQL should transition to utilizing existing ecosystem resources such as IBP to further cut down costs. We need further clarity regarding budget. Nay until an update in this department.

Man, are we really gonna have to NAY every infra proposal 1-2 times until we get a reasonable budget, this really makes me feel icky. I'll go over the proposal/budget in the next few days but casting NAY in protest in the meantime!!

Appreciate the cut; believe this is a step in the right direction to maintain important infrastructure. It would be great to continue to see how we can lower the cost of providing service.

We support this proposal in this way, after the reduction in engineering costs. But despite our aye vote, we encourage future proposals to further utilize existing ecosystem resources like IBP to help lower expenses as mentioned by few of our members.