No. Like most donors, we hope to have the greatest effects with our investment by investing in (a) important problems and solutions that (b) might be transferred and replicated. For example, a data platform that could be applied to many freshwater key biodiversity areas is more attractive than a very local database. Or, a data sharing partnership that spans a major catchment basin where there are many human needs and pressures from near-term hydropower and mining development would be more attractive than digitizing a legacy dataset from a single lake. Many of the important decisions about biodiversity are being made in economic sectors other than the conservation sector and over time we hope to see uses that influence economic development decisions and decisions such as dam locations, land-use, and energy development. We do not make very large grants and a problem and project might be too big for our resources. Thus, we must balance creating access to biodiversity data that might have multiple uses for important problems with our available resources.