Cardano will have a maximum supply of 45,000,000,000 ADA. A capped supply is a great feature, but what truly matters is the amount of ADA held in the reserve (which is gradually being depleted) and the ability to replenish the Treasury. The reserve is the primary source of ADA for the Treasury. Everything else (most notably network fees) is currently negligible. Therefore, we should care about how the ADA from the Treasury is being used: who receives it, under what conditions, and how these expenditures generate future revenue and further growth for the ecosystem. In the past, builders could obtain funding through Catalyst. Catalyst has transitioned from IOG to the Cardano Foundation. The rules for securing funding are now very strict. That is fine, and I actually like this new direction. The issue, however, is that we are talking about a sum of only 2 million ADA. I expect Catalyst will ask for a budget next NCL round. The Orion Fund and Alpha Growth define their own rules for distributing significantly larger amounts of funding. On-chain governance is constrained only by the NCL. This limit can be increased via a single vote. As we have seen, by as much as 150 million ADA. Cardano has reached a paradoxical situation: the strictest requirements for obtaining funding apply to small amounts (roughly 50,000 to 200,000 ADA) whereas securing 10 million ADA might actually be much easier. It all depends on who decides on the funding. We have hired paid experts for Catalyst, and we are paying experts from the Orion Fund and Alpha Growth. They receive compensation amounting to millions of ADA. To be clear, it is not about whether they deserve it or not. Experts must be paid. We should want experts in our processes. DReps decide on the largest allocations (including proposals related to infrastructure) entirely for free and without the involvement of subject-matter experts. We are willing to pay tens of millions of ADA to third parties as rewards while DReps have limited control over how these funds are allocated. We have failed to bring professionals into the decision-making process for the largest funding amounts. The workload for DReps this year has been so intense that many have already retired. The current low level of engagement in governance suggests that this trend is likely to continue. The existing system places a heavy burden of work and responsibility on volunteers, while positioning well-paid experts in funding vehicles with lover budgets. For some builders, it is easier to bypass Catalyst and seek funding from the Orion Fund or Alpha Growth, though that is certainly no easy task. Nevertheless, on-chain governance remains the most straightforward path to securing large-scale funding. I am aware of plans to bring experts into on-chain governance, so I remain optimistic. The key will be to connect the expertise with the requirements for decentralization. DReps must continue to play a pivotal role in Treasury decision-making. Changes are essential. I look forward to seeing what they bring.