Without addressing shortcomings such as insufficient justification for the revenue model, lack of competitive analysis against existing public tools like e-Sakshya, discrepancies in past project performance, and non-disclosure due to NDAs, large-scale treasury proposals of this nature will remain difficult to pass. What I consistently feel is that there is no standardized form to fill gaps in these proposals, nor any formal body to thoroughly review and vet large-scale projects. Without such a mechanism, the structure inherently makes it difficult to approve proposals of this scale. Cardano is currently working to establish such an institution, but at this stage, it has not yet been fully developed—making it realistically challenging for large proposals like this one to pass. Many DReps are evaluating proposals from a banking-style perspective, demanding clear evidence of revenue generation. Unless proposers explicitly outline on-chain contract summaries and tie payments to verifiable deliverables, it becomes difficult to accumulate sufficient “Yes” votes. Let this moment serve as an opportunity to clearly define the mechanisms and evaluation criteria, and engage in thorough, structured discussion. That is precisely why many of us are voting “Yes.”