That was fun to listen to!

My issue with the proposal is that the focus is on an indivudual case without having a framework present. I feel that we can expect a lot more backdated claims from the popular figures (that feel they need to be compensated) in the future as the precedent is set with this case.

I find it hard to digest that we did not look at the broader questions first;

• should we compensate key figures for past performance (or losses) retrospectively?

• If so, when and when not?
• if so, how do we prevent this from being a popularity contest?
• if so, what is a reasonable amount (based both on the work aswell as the market conditions and impact on hive?)

I would had loved these questions being discussed first. I would have had zero issues with a 2026 proposal to fund the efforts of this individual (even at a higher cost), but that this case got excepted without defining a framework for future claims (they will follow!) rubs me in the wrong way.