First, record-keeping products are a simple model the market already tested and moved past a long time ago. Even when you sell them as a solution, they rarely turn into real revenue or profit. Back in 2019 there were tons of blockchain solutions for hospital records, anti-counterfeit coupons, logistics data and so on. Most of them are gone now. The model just doesn't work in today's market. Second, even if this passes, it's not a project that puts Cardano on the map. Record verification can run on any chain, so it doesn't show off anything unique about Cardano or add to its value. Third, the transaction volume is tiny compared to the investment. On top of that, transactions get batched, and agencies will push batch sizes as high as they can to cut costs. So even after 9.6M ADA, real volume is very likely to be ridiculously low. Lastly, even if other governments use this framework, there'll be more costs to integrate it with their legacy systems. You don't just build it once and plug it in elsewhere. Every new government needs its own integration work, and that's exactly what this proposal is asking us to pay for. If we fund things just because they use the Cardano network, there's no proposal we could ever say no to. And again, this isn't even a good reference case. Look at DTCC on Canton. America's securities clearing and settlement giant, processing quadrillions of dollars a year, just started tokenizing US Treasuries on Canton with more than 30 financial institutions. That's the kind of use case we should be chasing. And I don't think landing something like that would even take 9.6M ADA. We need to be realistic. There's no reason to spend a limited treasury on proposals with no numbers and no results.