Speaking as a moderator, I think the discussion has settled with a fair understanding on all sides, and I am happy to see that. Some feathers were ruffled (innovation & change tends to evoke that response), but I am very glad that the initial testiness has cooled off. In response to one unanswered question, whether or not this qualifies as an "ethnographic" weapon for the purposes of this forum, it of course pushes the boundries, as does the design itself. Having authored in part the mission statement of the forum, I can say that the intent to exclude "custom" knives was directed at contemporary blades that are either essentially reproductions (often of excellent quality) of historical forms, and modern designs that are not based on any particular historical model. It is hard to classify a design such as Antonios, but I think it is enough of a cultural expression, both as a reflection of past forms and as a contemporary reaction to these.
Speaking as a "private citizen," I think the design is interesting and dramatic, and the workmanship is superb, but doesn't strike a cord with me personally. That is probably because I don't have a particularly strong interest in either Japanese or Philippine blades. After all, they are not dha.
I do see a functional aspect of the baca baca, actually, as it substitutes for the habaki that appears on a traditional tanto.
Hybridizations and interpretations, often dramatic ones, are a real part of the history of weapons. An example I posted on recently is the hybrid daab/katana/keris that is the subject of
this thread.