While appreciating Mintscan explorer and recognizing its contribution to the ecosystem, I am quite sceptical of this proposal in its current form.
Firstly, as far as I know, Mintscan should have a lot of funding from all the chains Cosmostation is validating, and it’s totally unclear how much tokens does the team earn from that. So the idea of getting more tokens while the amount earned from validators might cover the development and maintenance is questionable for me.
Second, there’s no report in the current form of this proposal on how much Cosmostation is earning, how much is required for development, how much is the cost of any feature planned to be integrated later and where did this 320k ATOM number came from. There was a bash on Notional for not having the detailed numbers in proposal 104 (see this [Proposal ##][DRAFT] Cancel Proposal 104), so not providing any justification for this number would likely result in the similar outcome.
Third, it’s not clear which period of development does this 320k ATOM sum cover. The proposal says it’s gonna be a vesting account for 10 years, but this doesn’t answer which period does the requested sum cover. We want to avoid the case where the team comes up with another community pool spend proposal in let’s say a year, don’t we?
Fourth, while there’s a list of features that are planned to be integrated, which is really nice, there’s no estimation on these features and their release dates, having a more detailed roadmap with every feature listed is lacking here (and also see my second point for justification of the requested amount, as it’s a bit related to this point).
Fifth, why asking for a 10 year vesting? It’s quite a big period, and in my opinion, it would be wise to split this proposal into a bunch of smaller ones, like @tom suggested, this way the community would have a better way of verifying that the team delivers what they promised.
Sixth, why not applying for an ICF grant instead of asking for a community pool spend? (I am probably lacking some knowledge here, would be nice to get a clarification here).
So with the current form of this proposal, I’d personally vote “no”, while I appreciate the input of this explorer, I think there’s a lot of details that can and should be provided before having that big community pool spend.