Kusama Data on Dune+BigQuery (9 months, 7/1/25-3/31/26)

Rejected
Content
AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Request
9,055KSM
Status
Decision14d
Confirmation
2d
Attempts
0
Tally
26.2%Aye
50.0%Threshold
73.8%Nay
Aye
70.69KKSM
Nay
198.61KKSM
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

    Threshold

  • 0.0%
Support
0.15%
23.71KKSM
Issuance
16.26MKSM
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Actions
Check how referenda works here.
Call
Metadata
Timeline4
Votes Bubble
Statistics
Comments

PolkaWorld votes NAY

Our concerns remain consistent with those we raised in the Polkadot proposal.

In theory, facilitating collaboration between Polkadot and Dune is a positive step. However, in this proposal, the infrastructure costs alone (Dune + Google Cloud) total $197,440 USDC per quarter, accounting for over 83% of the total quarterly budget. We’d like to better understand the breakdown and justification for these expenses.

Additionally, while many X posts were cited to show community usage, a more meaningful approach—especially for a data analytics team—would be to provide concrete usage metrics from the past year to demonstrate impact. For example, data points like:

•	Total dashboard pageviews and most-visited datasets
•	Query counts across various parachains
•	Growth in active dashboard users over time
•	Volume and depth of user behavior insights derived from the platform

Moreover, the proposal lacks clearly defined outcome-oriented goals. The current objective seems to be “maintaining the existing service,” without any proactive efforts to drive usage or engagement through improved data offerings. This passive approach limits the product’s potential to support ecosystem growth.

Full feedback available here.

Reply
Up

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is NAY.

The Big Spender track requires 60% quorum according to our voting policy v0.2, and any referendum in which the majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote. This proposal has received zero aye and four nay votes from ten available members, with one member abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

The voters expressed skepticism regarding the necessity and value of the proposed tool, citing existing alternatives and unclear cost documentation. Concerns were raised about the substantial funds previously allocated for initial integration, which they believed should have sufficed for ongoing expenses. Some voters found the costs unconvincing compared to other options, while one chose to abstain, noting the swift integration in the past but seeking further comparison with a potential first-party integration. Overall, the sentiment leaned towards doubt and caution.

The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.

Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.

Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate

📅 Book Office Hours
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate

Reply
Up