It really doesn't matter whether the risks and rewards are high or low or whether
@onceuponatime is generous or just being an entrepreneur, etc. What matters is that many of us feel that we've already invested in this and other 2.0 features that it turns out have yet to be developed. Fine, reasonable people can understand the funding challenges we've faced. And if we're still here, we've mostly wrapped our minds around the fact that further investment is necessary. But why should those of us willing to invest further now be cut out if it?
I think some in the community will not stand for it. Sure, there's a strong possibility that it could get rammed down our throats anyway. But the potential consequences of that should be considered very carefully. The last thing we should want right now is for a chunk of the community to vote with their feet. So let's not screw this up royally. We've stumbled upon a very smart and powerful, new model that will allow for the immediate funding of features that not everyone is willing and/or ready to pay for. So let's get it done without cutting out the people who ARE ready and willing to pay for it now.
Having said that, I think this proposal really only has one problem. And that's the "private, unknown investor" who "
might create an FBA and offer shares for sale on the DEX as a way for the Community to participate in that fee stream". I'm sure most here can read between the lines, but I doubt anyone is comfortable with the idea of signing away 80% of stealth transfer fees forever based on "might" or "they have indicated that this is what they intend". So let's build into the proposal some caps to make it VERY unattractive for the "private, unknown investor" NOT to sell shares to members of the community who are interested in investing. That way everyone can feel comfortable moving forward with this ASAP.