No, I meant in terms of KPIs. Your funding should be dependent on reaching certain milestones, both in terms of becoming open source and in user growth. I’m not sure why you’re trying to push this beaconcha.in narrative so much, I’m clearly pushing strongly against it, as I am for this here proposal.
But if you’re pushing so much for this narrative: does your tool actually achieve 10% of what beaconcha.in does? From what I can tell, it only stores a very low amount of data, whereas beaconcha.in is a fully-fledged explorer. The hosting costs for both of these would be vastly different. Happy to be proven wrong though.
I agree. Which is why we’ll deploy a gnosischa.in fork publicly before their deployment closes down on October 25th. For much less than $350k / year. Without being extractive to the DAO or its users.
Apart from all of this and the suspicious timing of this proposal, I’d also like to see what changed between this proposal and the previous one. I’m assuming that the current version doesn’t rely on Beaconcha.in’s API anymore? Or is that what you’re planning on doing with the grant?
And of course, I again have to highlight that Gnosis is not in the business of funding closed source tools. Open sourcing it should be the first step before even thinking about asking for funding.