Venice is a traditional company with equity. This was true before we sold 8.98% of the company, and it's true today. Venice also has a token base:0xacfe6019ed1a7dc6f7b508c02d1b04ec88cc21bf, usable by customers within our app, and also as the target of our acquisition for burning. Why are the incentives not misaligned with equity holders? 1. Because those who are equity holders also happen to be the largest holders of VVV, both indirectly as the entity holds the plurality of tokens, and directly through personal ownership. More than half of all VVV are held by equity owners of Venice, and this portion has increased over time both in percentage terms and in aggregate. Show me any other project for which that last statement is true. 2. Because we've said exactly what we're going to do, both to our community of VVV holders and to the recent investors: we are going to grow our business, take a portion of revenue, and buy and burn as many tokens as we can. We do this burn not to be altruistic, but in our self-interest (see #1). Is the fear among crypto twitter that 8.98% of Venice equity holders will demand revenues are distributed as dividends instead of burns? Let's think this through. First, they can't command such a thing as a minority. But more importantly, they won't, because they know what our intentions are and that's precisely why they invested. It's why they demanded direct token exposure through vesting warrants in addition to the indirect exposure through the treasury. It is on this understanding of our plans that 8.98% of the company was sold. Surely there are many bad ways to do token/equity designs. Ultimately, regardless of intent, incentives win the day, and we have formed ours intentionally, and transparently.