Critical Review of the Funding Proposal

The funding proposal for Subscan Explorer services for Bifrost Polkadot and Kusama parachains is well-structured and provides a clear breakdown of operational costs. However, several areas could be improved to enhance transparency, justification, and financial planning.

1. Lack of Justification for Service Costs

While the proposal details the costs associated with Subscan services, it does not explain why specific service tiers (Advanced/Professional) were selected instead of the Basic plan. Additionally, there is no discussion on projected data usage growth and how these figures were estimated.

📌 Recommendation: Include a brief justification for the selected pricing tier and an explanation of how data usage is expected to evolve in the coming months.

---

2. No Comparison with Previous Expenditures

The request covers costs for Q4 2024 and Q1 2025 but lacks any reference to historical data from Q3 2024 or earlier. Without this context, it is unclear whether expenses are stable, increasing, or fluctuating. A cost trend analysis would help justify the funding request.

📌 Recommendation: Provide a comparison with past quarters to demonstrate cost predictability and show that the requested funds align with historical spending patterns.

---

3. Absence of Cost Optimization Strategies

There is no mention of potential cost-saving measures or alternative service providers. The proposal does not address whether data compression, caching strategies, or other optimizations have been explored to reduce reliance on Subscan’s higher-tier plans.

📌 Recommendation: Include a short section on potential long-term cost optimization strategies to assure the community that expenses are being managed efficiently.

---

4. Unclear Handling of BNC Price Volatility

The proposal requests funding in BNC, converted from USD based on the EMA7 price at a specific block. However, there is no mention of how potential fluctuations in the BNC price might impact the funding request. If the price of BNC changes significantly before the proposal is approved, this could lead to an over- or underfunded request.

📌 Recommendation: Address potential price fluctuations and specify whether the requested amount will be adjusted if the BNC price changes significantly before the proposal is approved.

---

Conclusion

While the proposal provides a structured financial request, improving its cost justification, transparency, and risk management would strengthen its credibility. To enhance its chances of approval, the proposal should:

✔ Justify the selected service tier with data usage projections.
✔ Compare requested funds with previous quarters to highlight spending trends.
✔ Discuss potential cost optimizations for long-term sustainability.
✔ Address BNC price volatility and its impact on the requested amount.

Implementing these improvements will make the funding request more compelling and demonstrate responsible financial planning. 🚀