Matt,

You know that I appreciate all of the work you have done, and I respect you for it. I get what you are saying, but you must be able to see the logical shift here, right?

First it was argued (by you and others) that it was perfectly fine to remove users' stake because it was done through an airdrop. The stake wasn't actually taken. It was just never given to them.

Now it comes out that it wasn't even an airdrop, and the accounts did have a stake briefly, and the argument shifts and becomes those who were excluded are complicating things to serve their points. You must see the shift? How is it morally acceptable to do that? If it is so simple, explain it to me.

Obviously, I am going to argue when 20 thousand dollars are on the line.