You pretend to be a technical person but you can’t distinguish between protocol rules and censorship? That’s a bad look. Refer to the attached image. > You assume modern spammers are cost-sensitive? They are not. They are hype-sensitive. High fees don't deter them. They validate the "asset" value and drive the FOMO cycles they rely on. 🤔 That’s pretty much what I said. Gamified spam is not simple stenography. So you admit fees are not deterrent enough. > You also completely sidestepped the timescale mismatch. I didn’t. As I said, if BIP110 proves insufficient to meaningfully reduce spam (not eliminate it), there are other proposals on the table that take a far more nuclear approach - the Cat. Those can be deployed as a fallback if needed. That said, I doubt any investor who built long-term assumptions around a spam-driven business model would willingly push things that far, even if they technically could. The risk profile becomes too asymmetric. If the Bitcoin community hardens its stance towards spam, that entire business can get wiped out overnight. That precedent already exists. Vitalik showed exactly how quickly a community can coordinate and crush an activity once it’s broadly viewed as hostile to the network’s priorities.