Under the current context, we will not support this proposal. This is according to the fact that the community already have voted a 30,000 ATOM allocation for @ping Explorer via Proposal #814 in august last year.
For more context, users can also look back at the original forum discussion that happened here:
Unfortunately, regarding this previous spending, another similar proposal would not make economical sense for us. Of course we look forward to learn more about what motivates you to request spending another 65,000 ATOMs. Maybe you could elaborate more about the details that differentiate the previous proposal against yours.