{"requested":"opengov:401","threadKey":"opengov:401","generation":"6690c444c3e1fdf2","total":1,"rows":[{"commentId":"s6a9f2734af0c7f74a37ccf6b","parentId":null,"replyToId":null,"author":{"account":{"accountId":"0x4edd777e6d3bcde847a6b7a269e73af3a62facd3da8ce8dac63ff9bd7305753c","address":"12nQXR1v3RbKrMcHD9TRyjXGNEfP5RNLHrD6ov8BGQs2tdqM","emoji":"🦁","tag":null,"identity":null,"profile":null},"legacyName":null},"body":"I’ll vote Aye. $9,000 for a year of Subsquare maintenance and Hydration specific development seems reasonable, especially given how important Subsquare has become for governance.\n\nOne concern I have more broadly, though, is the growing number of separate Treasury spending requests for infrastructure, oracle services, maintenance, development and other recurring costs.\n\nIt would be very helpful to have a consolidated annual operating budget for Hydration, showing recurring expenses across Coretime, Subsquare, oracle providers, infrastructure, development and other services, alongside protocol revenue from the Money Market, HOLLAR, trading fees and other sources.\n\nIndividual proposals like this one can be perfectly reasonable, but it is difficult for voters to understand the protocol’s overall financial sustainability when recurring costs are considered one proposal at a time.\n\nA simple annual P&L style overview would make Treasury governance much more transparent and help the community see how close Hydration is to covering its operating costs with real protocol revenue.","bodyFormat":"markdown","hidden":false,"hiddenReason":null,"deleted":false,"createdAt":"2026-09-07T21:05:56.992Z","editedAt":null,"revision":0,"upvotes":0,"source":{"name":"subsquare","id":"6a9f2734af0c7f74a37ccf6b","cid":null,"height":1},"position":{"side":"Aye","conviction":"None","balance":"34114945675147371","weighted":"3411494567514737"},"media":{},"replies":[]}],"updates":[],"nextCursor":null,"positionsComplete":true,"locked":false}