I think where we differ is I wouldn’t call that “development”, but I would call it management cost (which is why this is a service proposal, not a funding proposal).
To be specific about infrastructure costs, more than 1/3 goes to the tower providers since they have been running CC Towers for the altruist network since January. While they have fronted the cost of running these CC Towers, this was a way to alleviate the continued cost until the public service for POKT node runners is off the ground. At this point they have only been running CC Towers for the benefit of the altruist network, so a supplementation makes sense (much like the supplementation for those who would run rare chains).
DA has our own infra costs as well. We’ve spent thousands a month at times just on running out CC testing to ensure capacity and QoS. We are asking for less than $2k to DA to help cover those kinds of costs. Especially with helping launch a rare chain program (which we get no cut of and 100% goes to the node runners), there will likely still be yet more infrastructure required on our side to ensure quality and accountability.
I believe our infra ask is more then understandable, especially considering the amount of work and cost we are taking on.
The POKT ecosystem (through PNI) has already been a customer of CC… I’m just now asking that it be a paying customer, just like the DAO pays for other contributors for their services (similar to community services or research services). Unlike past services though, we have already worked with PNF to provide oversight and have tangible monthly infrastructure costs.
As I mentioned in my proposal 
If our providers hit profitability faster than expected, I am happy to discontinue the infra cost. We would still be offering the DAO much more involvement than we would other customers as the DAO has special needs for transparency and oversight compliance with PNF. This is unique compared to any regular CC customer… but the goal is just to supplement some of the infra costs in the very short term.
I open to any feedback about our ask. I did try my best to be as pragmatic as possible.
Regarding the relay structure, I would refer to this section as I laid out the exact calculations.