Welcome to the community @ratankaliani and thanks for the kind words! As you mentioned and we hope the proposal indicates, we have a strong inclination towards transparency and building tools for the community.
We are a team of 21 and are actively hiring to better fulfill the needs of engagements like the one proposed above. Of course, Gauntlet would not direct all of our engineering/data science/product/program management resources towards a single engagement. That said, our model and simulation work on other protocols, not just liquidity protocols, result in better assumptions and risk management for individual protocols like Aave.
Inputs have costs. Some of these costs have been partially accounted for from our prior engagement writing the Market Risk Assessment. For example, ETLs, Aave V1/V2 contracts integrated into our simulation SDK, baseline QA processes, and some Kubeflow automation.
Outputs provide value. As mentioned, Gauntlet seeks to charge commensurate to the value provided. Our goal is to drive down costs while increasing the value added to Aave. The better we do this the better we can service the protocol. Fortunately, we are well capitalized and can focus on delivering value over driving down costs. The Risk Dashboard and API are a good example of value bets we would like to take that have a large costs (development, automation, maintenance).
As a reviewer on the Aave Grants DAO, I heavily weight towards the value a grant application will provide to the community over the cost. If we fail to do so it will be even tougher to attract top talent to tinker, build, and iterate on the protocol. There are various RFPs and significant resources that are already difficult to fulfill and deploy.
We hope our value provided resonates with the community.