Sounds great that OHM is about to get a new holder and active ecosystem participant. However, I don't see the need for an OIP. The DAO should not hand out official endorsements, especially not in the form of OIPs (Olympus Improvement Proposals) either to formed or unformed companies or projects.
To get first looks at new products and features, the best way is to participate in the discord, forum and community calls. This is where initiatives are shared and discussed. It will be impossible to have a list of OIPd first access partners that the dev teams have to run new features by - it would slow down development of the protocol which is bad for everyone. There is already an established way for organisations building on or around OHM to get extra benefits - Olympus Grants.
Olympus should not set precedent by issuing reserve bonds via OIPs to unknown parties. The goal of Olympus is to create a decentralized reserve currency and monetary policy. That implies it's programmatic and smart contract based. The OIP tool should not be used arbitrarily.
Finally, it's great to have enthusiastic builders thinking about how to build on OHM. But as for all new ideas, the challenge is not coming up with a vision. It's delivering results. I think you will have better success if you focus on presenting what you have done, build relationships in the OHM community by focusing on the problems you are solving, pay attention to formalia (it would help if you had read the guidelines before posting an OIP, e.g. always post RFC first), don't publish "an old version" of the post (looks very sloppy).
Best of luck