Love you to death man but you are missing the whole point. The community you built is talking and you are not listening, in fact you are making it worse by threatening us. If we are the science coin, then cut all the extra stuff IO has their hands in. The other non research, non dev, non update proposals, and come back with 3 proposals that focus on core development, maintenance, and research. The problem I have right now is IO lacks focus. One post I hear research is the most important, one post it’s chain updates, one post its core development and maintenance, then sprinkle in all the completely unrelated businesses that should be running independently (although I do appreciate that IO contracts several community teams). All these things at once cannot be the top issue, you need to focus and pick a lane. One team cannot be responsible for oversight of 50% of the treasury spend. I can imagine it will be impossible for IO to be sustainable without treasury money. This is a huge problem that I see no end in sight for. I’m not sure there is a sustainable path to revenue, never been talked about publicly. If all IO proposals are going to be an every year expenditure, then they should have a much tighter budget and focus. We are forcing every one else to show numbers, provide a path towards self sustainability, and repay the treasury somehow. This expectation should be across the board. Also, show us the FTE rates and overhead cost!! The community deserves to know. It’s good business practice and will set a bar for the next round of proposers who look to further decentralize that work. Idk if you will read this or not. I personally do not want you or IO to leave. I simply am asking for focus, transparency, and a bit of willingness to change based on community feedback. Because this is not a good look for any of us.