I recently posted [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/cardano/comments/ufcr54/the_orbis_project_raises_a_lot_of_red_flags/?ref=share&ref_source=link) in regards to the Orbis Project and I wanted to do a followup, specifically addressing what the I hope the Orbis team does if they decide to resubmit their proposal for Fund 9 (and I really hope they do).
I’m pleased to see that the at least a large enough amount of community members listened and voted accordingly, causing Orbis to go unfunded this round.
Funding: The most important part of this followup is to plead with the team to dial back how much funding they are asking for if they choose to resubmit their proposal. I’d have been absolutely ecstatic to vote to fund their project (even with my concerns) if they had simply broken their funding allocation into many Catalyst rounds. I realize now that Catalyst has many checks and balances against a project that could be scamming the Catalyst funding mechanism…but IMO, it came off as extremely greedy for them to do it this way…and I hope that this becomes a cautionary tale for other projects going forward. They were definitely the most ambitious project in that whole category..but they were also acting against the community aspect of this system by trying for ALL of the scaling funding in round 8, IMHO.
Legitmacy: I’d like to walk back one of my original points where I called into question Orbis’s legitmacy. I’ve recently been directed to [a different part of their github repo](https://github.com/orgs/Orbis-Tertius/projects/2) which alleviated some of my fears in that department. They seem to be competent devs now that I’ve seen this part of their repo. IMO, the more detail a project gives when asking for funding, the more trustworthy they are. This is an open source ecosystem…so they owe us more transparency than they have shown until now. Hand-wavy technical explanations by the team in their marketing material (perhaps for the sake of making their project more easy to understand to less technical people) raised some red flags for me. For me, dumbing their tech explanations down for me to understand had the effect of making it seem that they hadn’t done the research yet.
Marketing: Another point I made was to call into question their sensationalist, fear-mongering marketing strategy. I still stand by that point and would ask the people behind marketing this project to take a page from IOHK and stop trying to scare the community into supporting your scaling solution. We don’t need to be spoken to like sheep. IMO, I’m here for a very technically complex protocol that I’ve followed closely throughout the dev cycles….and I prefer to be spoken to with a pragmatic tone. If the tech jargon becomes too much, I will look it up and maybe actually learn something…and I don’t think I am wrong to say that this is welcome by many of us here.
**I just thought I’d do the right thing and post this followup in the hopes that the Orbis team is reading and can be convinced to resubmit their proposal for fund 9 and ask for less funding (IMO, a more egalitarian course of action would have been to ask for 25% or less of the scaling category for four straight Catalyst rounds) as a gesture of good faith toward a community that (at least from my perspective) felt like they were trying to steamroll all other scaling projects in the category.**