Appreciate the questions — they’re reasonable, and they’re the kind we want people asking.

What will the funding be spent on?
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)

Is there anything enabling repayment (grant → loan)?
This is public infrastructure, not a revenue product. The “repayment” is governance credibility: less fog, less risk, more accountability. If there’s future monetization, we can publish a voluntary return policy — but the value here is transparent accounting.

Does it directly bring capital / signups / revenue?
Not like a marketing funnel. It reduces governance uncertainty. Serious capital prices governance risk, and this makes the treasury measurable instead of narrative-driven.

Who is behind it?
We understand the curiosity, but the tool is designed so the messenger doesn’t matter: public JSON, documented assumptions, reproducible outputs. That’s how you defuse personality politics and keep it audit-driven.