Subscan ought to change its business model or be replaced

[joepetrowski]

@XCAstronaut

Regarding the PTF, I am beginning to think that its presence in this discussion is distracting from the more foundational topics here. While I understand that the topic of this conversation may be a good example of a matter that could be handled by an initiative such as the PTF, I think a separate public discussion around the PTF would be more suitable than making its case here.

Yeah that’s fair, will drop the PTF from this thread, except one more thing :).

@XCAstronaut

A block explorer is something that a live parachain ought to have available on day 1 of launch, regardless of whether they are a part of the PTF. It’s also something that one would assume a parachain needs prior to their token having a sense of value, so the PTF would likely need to cover the costs not just of their current members, but for parachains that may or may not ever join or contribute to the PTF, which is the flaw in this solution.

I really hope that this is not what the PTF would become: An exclusive club that gets special services for their own parachains. It should be a group of established experts in parachain development and deployment that can prioritize making the experience of building a parachain on Polkadot better for everyone.

@XCAstronaut

To underscore the significance of making this a more inviting ecosystem to build in, I would like to highlight that the crowdloan auction schedule was just engineered by Parity to be more artificially competitive

This is quite a bold accusation. Since I was involved in making the schedule and proposed it myself, I’d be rather interested in any evidence you have to support it.