Thanks for the thoughtful message — and for actually focusing on substance instead of vibes.

To be clear about what this proposal is:

It funds completion, stabilization, and maintenance of a public economic transparency dataset + dashboard that quantifies non-programmatic inflation on Hive (primarily DHF HBD issuance and conversion-driven supply effects) and attributes it to:

• governance authorization (who supported paid proposals, stake-weighted),

• primary recipients (who got paid directly),

• secondary flows (where that value moved next, including exchange exits).

This is not a general analytics platform. It is not content metrics. It is not “anti-DHF.” And it is not a narrative machine. It’s accounting.

And because you’re right that proposals should be judged like infrastructure, here’s exactly what the funds cover:

Funds are for:

• Hardening the data pipeline (HiveSQL + RPC reconciliation, integrity checks, deterministic rebuilds)

• Operating the public dataset (scheduled rebuilds, monitoring/alerts, caching, hosting/uptime)

• Auditability (versioned JSON outputs, changelog, methodology docs, reproducible scripts)

• Product completion (deeper account drilldowns, per-proposal breakdowns, exchange-flow labeling, UI clarity)

• Maintenance work (bug fixes, adapting to upstream API/SQL changes)

If someone thinks the tool is valuable, the honest question isn’t “why build this?” — it’s whether Hive prefers measurable treasury costs or permanent ambiguity.