Threatening to shut down the project if it does not receive Treasury funding is not a good strategy. Obtaining funding from public sources should always be a dialogue between the team and the DReps. This dialogue takes place largely on-chain, not off-chain. DReps should primarily work with the information that is in the proposals. I'm not a fan of off-chain debates, as there is no on-chain record and the information may not reach all DReps. It creates information asymmetry. DReps are responsible for Treasury resources, so they have the right and even the obligation to ask for additional information, request evidence of claims, request on-chain analyses, or request changes to the proposals. This is a completely normal procedure. Submitting a proposal is not a guarantee of obtaining funding. This process is inefficient because DReps often look at the proposal only after it has been submitted. Often, it is not an info action but a withdrawal. DReps are in a difficult position because if they need more information that is difficult to obtain, or a single change to the proposal, they have no choice but to vote NO and provide a rationale. Ideally, with conditions for approval. Proposers need to realize that DReps are unpaid and do not have the time to collect evidence or do on-chain analysis themselves. Proposers should provide this information so that DReps can verify it. An unapproved proposal may be partly the submitter's fault. There is no consensus on what should be in proposals. There is no template or rules. Let me give an example. Some teams list FTEs and cost breakdowns, while other teams do not. DReps could work with such detailed information in proposal A, so they can expect the same in proposal B. In case proposal B does not contain this information, it is desirable that the DReps require it. For proposers, this means processing feedback and resubmitting the proposal. I understand that this is unpleasant and laborious for both parties, for the team and DReps. The future of Cardano is at stake. We have entrusted it to decentralized governance. Asking questions, demanding cost reductions, wanting stricter milestones, wanting revenue sharing, and many other things are desirable in the name of protecting Treasury resources. I recommend that all proposers willingly process feedback from DReps and resubmit, instead of threatening to leave. Dialogue is always more beneficial than threats. If the team is genuinely interested in Cardano, they will find ways to continue building. Cardano governance urgently needs to establish standards and streamline processes.