Conversation
|
Thanks @senseless !! Would you kindly consider adding a note indicating that these price levels will be revisited in 6 months with a view to adjust them in line with prevalent market prices? Appreciated!!! Milos |
|
Regarding runway: our pricing has always been denominated in USD. We’ve managed our funds carefully and documented everything in detail. The DOT allocated to the bounty, however, is something we don’t control. It’s paid out monthly according to the DOTUSD value, so our effective runway is highly dependent on the DOT price. Given the current situation, the priority should be to prepare a new top-up proposal (I’ll draft it next week and share it with the IBP). In parallel, we should use this as an opportunity to revisit and optimize our pricing for the next proposal. Any adjustment should be data-driven and reflect current market conditions: both the DOT price and the significant increase in hardware costs caused by supply chain issues and the recent AI-driven demand. Our pricing must remain economically feasible and sustainable over time. Since our pricing always has been based on the 3-year commitment plans of cloud providers, here is the current overview.
All of our current prices are already significantly below market, while at the same time memory purchase costs have increased by roughly 3-4x this year alone. For enterprise NVMe Gen 5.0 there are now lead times of 6-12 months. Given that, I would be in favor of:
These changes would both prepare us for the upcoming top-up proposal and reflect a further discount in return for committing to another year, assuming it will be funded. I’d keep RAM pricing unchanged, since we are already 3x cheaper than comparable offerings. For bandwidth, I think we should spend more time on the model and present it together with the top-up bounty: a purely volume-based pricing scheme, where the unit price per GB/USD decreases as usage grows. Bandwidth is likely the component that scales the simplest and can provide the most meaningful relief to the treasury when designed correctly. In addition to operational costs and salaries, members also need to be able to invest in their own hardware, fully at their own risk, to provide and expand offerings for the ecosystem to further leverage economies of scale in future pricing. These investments can easily reach high five-figure amounts, but they also allow us to deliver infrastructure more cheaply than pure cloud, which in turn reduces the long-term cost to the treasury. For all the above reasons, we’re voting against RFC013 in its current form. |
|
Pulling the RFC and going to build a new one based on actual numbers like tugy suggests. |
3 participants
RFC 013 – IBP Cost Reduction Measure
Summary
DOT remains in the low single digits, Treasury purchasing power is depressed, and Bounty #50 is burning roughly $275k/month, leaving only a few months of viable runway. This RFC proposes new, lower IBP hardware pricing—effective December 2025—to materially reduce Treasury outflow, extend sustainability, and strengthen our commercial positioning with Parity, W3F, and other ecosystem clients.
New infra pricing (effective December 2025 billing month for January 1, 2026 payment):
Impact at the infra level:
View the full RFC attached
Vote
On the GitHub RFC PR:
No reaction = abstain.