Subsquid is no doubt a good product, but it has its own business model. Projects pay their deployments on subsquid, and SQD should seek a balance between their cost and pricing strategies. All in all, it's more a business than a infura.

For archived data, the treasury has funded archived node RPCs with which projects can easily call history data. Projects can also make their scripts to index history blocks for customized history data. We already have several indexing tool candidates. So it's hard for me to acknowledge this high spend is necessary.

I will let others decide on this one. Subsquid should get those free services paid by their users.

We need to see more support from other ecosystem players.

I think SQD should review its support model for these services. The beneficiaries of the services should display more support if this is indispensable for them, and in an ideal world they should be paying these services. And ~$300K for a quarter is a sized budget. Nay, favoring a restructuring of the contract between Polkadot and SQD.

I understand the importance of Subsquid for the Polkadot/Kusama ecosystem, however, I believe that the request is somewhat excessive and does not correspond to a business model that is appropriate for Polkadot.
I prefer to vote to abstain.

I agree that we need to take a closer look at Subsquid maintenance pricing and, as a community, ensure alternatives are funded. That being said, Subsquid has been widely adopted and has has maintained a great product.

We agree with both sides here, but believe subsquid should see continued funding.

I echo the sentiments of my fellow DAO members, I think the Subsquid Lab contract or business model has to be re-evaluated.

Align with other commenters that the quarterly ask feels too high for a business proposal. A reduced request, ideally with a mechanism to give back to the treasury or demonstrate measurable ROI, would be more appropriate.