That is actually a very useful clarification, Matthew. If I understand you correctly, UD made an economic decision not to pursue ICANN applications for certain Web3 TLDs because the expected sales would not justify the application, compliance and infrastructure costs — and customers who purchased since the DNS-integration announcement are therefore being refunded. The remaining question is the interesting one: why should remediation begin only with that later purchaser cohort? Many customers bought in 2021–2022 when UD was positioning Web3 domains as long-term digital identity infrastructure, promoting mass adoption, wallet functionality, Web3 login, decentralized websites and broad ecosystem integration. Those customers arguably relied on an even stronger version of the Web3 thesis than purchasers who came after the DNS pivot had already been announced. If the underlying business assessment has now changed because the Web3 market is, in your words, “small” and “niche,” it would be useful to understand the principled basis for distinguishing between those two groups of customers. That is not an argument against the current refunds. Quite the opposite. It is a question about consistency of remediation. The question is no longer whether refunds are appropriate. UD has apparently answered that question itself. The question is which affected purchaser cohorts should fairly be included.