I think you mentioned somewhere that you are aiming for early-career researchers, not so much for established group leaders.  Being an early-career researcher myself (postdoc), my first thought was that your program could easily turn out to be a trap.  At first, it looks like a fantastic opportunity because freedom and independence, etc.  However, I&#x27;m sure that you are looking for high risk &#x2F; high reward projects.  So there is, by definition, a very real possibility that some of your funded projects will fail.  What happens with the PIs of those projects?  It will be very hard for them to return to a more traditional career stream in academia because they will lack a strong publication record and teaching experience.  Researchers are in this respect different from start-up founders, because a failed start-up is not the end of the world and you can start over again.  In contrast to that, there are usually no second chances in academia, at least not at that career stage.  So it seems that you are asking people to stake everything on one card.  My question is: How are you going to manage the individual career risks associated with this approach to science funding?