Thanks for your reply!
We ended up moving the proposal from the nighthawk folks to the next stage in the process, for reasons including: the costs were more in line with what we expected, there was a guaranteed user in nighthawk wallet, and the longer period of time period gives time for an ecosystem to build up around it (though we haven’t settled on 2 years yet and there are some questions).
You can follow the kinds of questions we’re asking over on that thread: https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/2-years-of-lightwalletd-infra-hosting-maintenance/38126
There’s also a proposal for the Zecwallet folks for the same thing, as part of a larger maintenance proposal, which ZOMG hasn’t discussed yet: https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/zecwallet-code-maintenance-and-infra/38170
I have no idea, and I’m not really pushing this one way or another, but Zecwallet’s lightwalletd setup is different than Nighthawk’s and has some performance optimizations, and I wonder if Zecwallet might see lightwalletd maintenance as a distraction and be interested in another party taking this on.