I want to raise a serious concern regarding how IBP budgets and allocations are being structured and justified.

First, it is difficult to understand why budgeting continues to be based on AWS-level infrastructure cost assumptions when, in reality, a significant portion of providers in the ecosystem do not operate on AWS. as has been discussed in this thread:
https://forum.polkadot.network/t/outstanding-questions-about-the-infrastructure-builders-program-ibp-bounty/16633

IBP members rank 6 already run on owned hardware that was previously funded with previous bounties when they reached rank 4:

So basically IBP members just need to be paid for bandwith. Why do the include hardware costs in the proposal when the Treasury has already funded that and they own the infra?

Also, the gap between AWS-based cost estimates and actual operating costs is considerable. What IBP operators run in AWS? How many operators are running their nodes in providers that are substantially more cost-efficient and pocketing the difference? There needs to be far greater transparency on how these figures are derived and whether they accurately reflect real-world infrastructure spending.

Second, the proposal to reduce Coinstudio’s curator compensation by 50% may appear reasonable at first glance, but it lacks proper context. The role has been compensated at approximately $3,400 per month for an extended period, yet there has been limited clarity or structured justification of the actual deliverables and ongoing responsibilities as discussed here particularly given that much of the process now appears to be largely automated or minimally maintained. This raises legitimate questions about efficiency, accountability, and whether compensation is still aligned with actual value delivered.

It increasingly feels like the ecosystem has been significantly overcharged and inefficiently managed over time, and that these practices are continuing, albeit at a reduced scale.

There is a growing perception that costs and compensation structures have not been properly aligned with actual operational value or transparency, which has led to concerns about long-term sustainability and fairness within the ecosystem.

Even if adjustments are now being made, they appear incremental rather than addressing the underlying issues in a meaningful way.

I find it excessive that almost $400K is being requested for roughly one and a half months of backdated payments.

If the previous bounty ran out of funds, this should have been addressed with a new proposal at the time, rather than retroactively validating costs for 12 operators. It seems more reasonable to only compensate the 8 operators included in the new proposal, instead of extending payments to the full previous set.

I don’t recall ever seeing evidence that all 12 IBP members have been running Bulletin nodes. It would be helpful to clarify who has actually been operating nodes in practice, and whether this has been consistent over the relevant period.

Finally, the AWS-based cost assumptions don’t reflect how these nodes are actually run in practice, which likely leads to significantly inflated estimates. The proposal needs a proper review of scope and realistic infrastructure costs.