Opportunity identification is one thing. Engagement is another altogether. Anytime admins are mediating the use of data, by definition, engagement is reduced. Some features are great, like "groups". However, these are managed by admins. Pivot needs to be released to grow in the wild as a social media platform. For instance, a LinkedIn style platform for community development - with the same ways of growing ones network, seeing feeds (including funding program information, like a "jobs" feed),etc for ideation, project development and opportunity identification could be very robust. Furthermore, the more serious funding opportunities require teams and the best team members are very often at other institutions. Open communities rather than ones defined by single institutions may also make more sense for many investigators. Not to mention, any NIH, DoD, NSF program officer could join the community to post, read, etc.,. Finally, individual rather than institutional membership would result in a more robust community - motivated people would join, not admins struggling to engage their faculty. People will build their own profiles willingly and fees would have to be used to develop and provide content. A fundamental weakness may be investigator concern about the confidentiality of their ideas. Anybody's guess whether that would be a fatal obstacle.