2024 Q4 & 2025 Q1 - Subscan Funding Proposal for Operation and Maintenance Fee

Address to the Subscan team and the Interlay community

After carefully analyzing the proposal to fund Subscan Explorer for $6,199 for the period from 01/10/2024 to 31/03/2025, I want to present a detailed breakdown of the situation to the community.

To the Subscan team:

1. Lack of transparency in pricing
   The invoice only shows the total amount of $5,904 + 5% service fee, without detailing:

   • How much is charged for data storage
   • How much is charged for data processing (computing resources)
   • How much is charged for API and interface access
   • How much is charged for monitoring and technical support

   The community needs a complete breakdown of expenses to make an informed decision.

2. Inconsistency with stated rates
   According to your own rates:

   • Basic plan: $799/month for volumes up to 200 GB
   • For each additional GB: $5.3

   With a volume of 234.92 GB, the calculation should yield:

   • Basic plan: $799
   • Additional: 34.92 GB × $5.3 = $185.08
   • Total: $984.08/month × 6 months = $5,904.48 + 5% fee = $6,199.70

   As we can see, the amount matches what was stated, but the question arises: does Interlay really generate 234.92 GB of data monthly? This seems inflated for our project.

3. Need for data volume details

   • How exactly is the volume of 234.92 GB measured?
   • Is this the size of the database, or does it include traffic, cache, logs?
   • Can we get monthly usage statistics from October 2024 to March 2025?
   • What specific data takes up the most space?

4. Absence of SLA and performance reports
   For $984/month we expect clear guarantees:

   • Uptime
   • API response speed
   • Data update frequency
   • Backup procedures

5. Regarding retroactive payment
   I understand these services have already been provided. However, the community must evaluate the value proposition objectively. The project's current financial situation doesn't allow for such expenses at the requested rate. We would like to discuss more sustainable pricing options that reflect both the value provided and our financial constraints.

To the Interlay community:

Let's consider alternatives with specific figures:

Price comparison (monthly):

Subscan (current proposal): $984 + 5% per month, $6,199 for 6 months

OnFinality (small project): $58.40 per month, $350.40 for 6 months

OnFinality (medium project): $144.47 per month, $866.82 for 6 months

OnFinality (large project): $490.60 per month, $2,943.60 for 6 months

AWS (basic infrastructure): ~$250 per month, ~$1,500 for 6 months

Statescan (via OpenSquare): Even lower costs

As you can see, even the most expensive OnFinality plan costs 2 times less than the Subscan proposal.

Community feedback:

1. User wliyongfeng suggested considering Statescan: "The community can deploy it by yourself or OpenSquare can host it with a relative low cost."

2. User cap directly supported: "Yes, let's go for Statescan. We can't afford to pay for subscan."

3. User mafux777 raised important infrastructure questions: "How many nodes are running? Who pays for these nodes? Who maintains the runtime of the parachain when the next relay chain software update breaks something?"

Financial reality of the project:

In current market conditions, Interlay must optimize expenses to survive. Spending $12,000 per year just on an explorer is an unaffordable luxury when alternatives exist that are 2-4 times cheaper. This is especially important for responsible treasury management, as approving such expenses when cheaper alternatives exist could create a concerning precedent.

Recognition of technical challenges:

I recognize that migration requires technical resources and time. As user mafux777 noted, it's not possible to simply "switch" to another explorer. This will require:

• A person with the necessary knowledge
• A person with the necessary access rights
• Time for testing and integration

Immediate temporary solution:

In the interim, while developing a permanent solution, the project could rely on Polkadot-JS Apps for basic blockchain exploration functionality. While not as user-friendly as Subscan, it provides essential data access at no additional cost and is already operational.

My proposal:

1. Short-term:

   • Reject the current proposal
   • Request a substantial discount from Subscan (maximum $500/month)
   • Use Polkadot-JS Apps as a temporary backup solution

2. Medium-term (1-3 months):

   • Start the migration process to OnFinality/SubQuery or Statescan
   • Create a working group to assess technical requirements
   • Contact key people:
     • OpenSquare for Statescan
     • [email protected] for SubQuery

3. Long-term:

   • Develop a comprehensive strategy to optimize the entire infrastructure
   • Consider decentralized solutions such as:
     • Phala Network for decentralized computation ($0.069 per hour per instance)
     • Acurast for compute tasks (from 0.001 cACU per execution)
     • Crust Network for storage (from $0.001349 to $0.004136 per GB per year)
   • These solutions could potentially reduce infrastructure costs by 80-90%

I vote AGAINST this proposal not because I don't value Subscan's work, but because:

1. The price is disproportionately high compared to market alternatives
2. There is a lack of transparency in cost formation
3. The current financial position of the project requires more economical solutions
4. Agreeing to such expenses would create a dangerous precedent for future spending
5. The requested amount represents approximately 1,900,000 INTR tokens, which would likely be sold on the market, further depressing the token price

As investors and community members, our primary responsibility is to ensure the long-term viability of the project. This requires making difficult but financially responsible decisions.

Respectfully,
Mr.RR