On the Helium proposal, I don't work there anymore but here's my take: Helium made two large, parallel bets: (1) Carriers will pay to offload to a decentralized network that fills coverage gaps. (2) Helium can build its own carrier, Helium Mobile, that offers cheaper prices than others due to the offload It was never explicitly stated, but (2) acted as a nice hedge for (1) being incorrect. If carriers won't use us, we'll use ourselves! So what happened? Well, this is a startup. Some bets win and some do not. The carrier offload bet won, there is massive PMF. Carriers agree to pay Helium more and more every year. On the other side, the Helium Mobile bet didn't go asymmetric. Free subscribers are expensive, but were the best subsidized bet to grow. Think about when Uber used to have $3 pools, nobody thought that was real but it grew them to the point of being unstoppable. HM made that bet, and all along the way it seemed like it could go parabolic. In places like New York with dense coverage, the Helium Network did meaningfully save HM money. Unfortunately, the expenses and distraction of running an MVNO do take a toll. It split focus. Helium Mobile was a swing for the fences, and while it didn't outright fail it was becoming a distraction from the bet that already had PMF; carrier offload! Leadership identified this gap and took action. HM was acquired, and the focus is now fully on offload and Noble Mobile is just another carrier using Helium. Now on to the proposal. Helium has PMF. We know this. But the age of subsidy is over, no more $3 Ubers. Hotspots need to get paid what carriers pay the network. I don't think this is controversial. The real controversial part is the one-time inflation. A network whose token is built on scarcity rightfully does not want a large inflation event. But here's the thing, Helium is at a meaningfully different stage. You can see it in the leadership change. Amir is the guy you want making large bets to find PMF. He's ruthless, driven, and not afraid to make controversial decisions. He's your 0 to 1 guy. Now look at Mario. He's smart, calculated, and has an MBA. He's your 1 to 100 guy. It's no longer a matter of "will this work" it's a matter of "put more money in to grow the network, yield more revenue." Mario knows how to do this scaling, and this scaling will not work without the inflation. Growth is not free. A business has operational costs that need to be covered. You want a navy seal team of salespeople onboarding hundreds of thousands of brownfield hotspots, and expanding to new countries? That costs money. So the network has a big decision here. It can stay in the scarcity mindset, mint no new tokens, and fizzle out as growth slows. Or it can take a risk and give the fire the fuel it needs to grow.