I'm voting No on the "The first node in the browser; a Cardano USP" proposal. To use a constrained treasury efficiently, the budget should be allocated by priority against actual ecosystem development needs. If this proposal passes and a new TypeScript-based browser node gets added as another client implementation, that's a positive in itself, but I don't see it as solving a fundamental problem that's blocking ecosystem development. In other words, it would be nice to have, but it's not essential at the priority level of this cycle. 1. The proposal doesn't demonstrate a problem the Cardano ecosystem actually needs to solve. The Cardano dApp and wallet ecosystem currently runs stably on infrastructure like Mesh, Lucid Evolution, Blockfrost, Maestro, and Koios. The absence of a fully-validating in-browser node isn't creating real problems for dApp builders or users. On top of that, IOG already provides a light verification option through Mithril. The 12-month adoption target of "≥3 wallet/dApp integrations" also reads as the proposal itself acknowledging that market demand isn't large. 2. The case for treasury priority is weak. In the current NCL-constrained environment, ₳4.6M is not a small amount. The goal of client diversity is already being addressed through multiple projects, and the differentiated value of a "browser-based TypeScript node" on top of that is not clearly articulated. HLabs is also requesting a separate ₳4.6M for Pebble and TypeScript tooling in the same cycle, which means a single team would receive roughly ₳9.2M from this cycle if both proposals pass. I think the more responsible treasury allocation for this cycle is to direct those funds toward protocol-layer infrastructure, maintenance of core tools with proven track records, and builder work where actual demand has been demonstrated.