This proposal has expired because it has not been processed for more than 1 month and will be resubmitted

Treasury
3mos ago
2 Comments
Proposed

This proposal has expired because it has not been processed for more than 1 month and will be resubmitted

Edited
Reply
Up
Share
  • Metadata
  • Timeline1
Comments

How can we verify, or at least estimate the usage?
I personally find it a bit hard to believe, cause this chain is having ~ 30 users per day (according to your own metrics), and not everyone is going to Subscan, so how do you get to 181GB? Can you provide a breakdown of the bandwith usage?

Finally, where can we see the contract signed with the pricing, or the current pricing offered to any other parachain? I understand the startup cost and specific knowledge, but GB don't cost this much in 2024 so I would like to re-evaluate / negotiate if that's possible. This small chain has to be very careful with spending if it wants to survive, while I guess Subscan is operating at a healthy profit on us.. right?

Thank you

Reply
Up

Hi there,

I completely understand your caution, and I appreciate your responsible approach.

I'd be happy to explain the 181 GB usage. This figure is based on the cumulative on-chain data since September 22, 2021. The amount of data processed fluctuates over time as the chain's data volume grows.

Regarding the pricing, Subscan's fees follow a standardized structure. You can review our proposals for other networks as references here:

https://polkadex.polkassembly.io/treasury/55

https://bifrost.subsquare.io/referenda/17

The "30 users per day" metric refers to the number of active accounts on the chain, not the traffic to our explorer. The explorer offers more than just transaction submission; data querying is also a critical function. However, I do agree that this suggests the network is relatively inactive.

Given these facts, I understand that deciding whether to continue the subscription is a significant decision. If basilisk community choose to discontinue, please inform us in advance to avoid unnecessary charges. However, this proposal pertains to previous billing, which, out of trust, we handled on a post-payment basis, so payment would still be required.

Edited

Reply
Up