> "We believe this sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the integrity of NEAR." I love you, my Chorus One frens, but let's be real: the reason you're complaining is because your Near revenues would get halved. Major problems that I see with that reasoning: 1. Validators are the ones voting on a proposal that directly impacts them financially. Are they unbiased? Of course not. No one votes to slash their own income: they'll vote against it or abstain. 2. By any metric, NEAR is still an early-stage protocol. This isn't Ethereum or Bitcoin. The focus shouldn't be decentralization at all costs but growth optimization. Some centralization along the way is normal and even necessary at this stage. Early-stage protocols shouldn't overpay for security. That's what the debate should focus on.