To aid anyone wanting to critically debate any ideas:

1. If someone starts an argument claiming as fact what tens of thousands of current and even millions of potential future people want, it's not really a balanced argument. https://twitter.com/GingerPirlo_FI/status/1335537811374682114

2. To do this as at the same time as describing an echo chamber is whats called cognitive dissonance. Essentially here that's doing the same thing you're speaking negatively about or accusing others of. Again, not an indication of a balanced argument.

3. Saying that people want more logical capital appreciation with 1) A matrix that is fundamentally illogical and 2) A structure that doesn't logically reward great performances when they happen yet simultaneously arguing against improving 1 and 2 is not that coherent.

4. Claiming to "know the answers" and that one's own point of view is definitively the "be all and all" is again not indicative of a balanced and considered argument.

5. Claiming "performance dividends" are the same as IPDs without even seeing what the former could be is simply wrong. But even with imagination one can see they are mot the same thing. Again, not a balanced point.

6. To say one of the key issues is new users for a product that's already had 700k sign ups and has been around for 5 years might suggest there is indeed an aspect(s) of the product that makes conversion and retention poor. Possibly.

7. To have to write an 8 page thread essentially justifying why a player that played well wasn't rewarded, together with multiple other users posts on the same subject could highlight there may be quite a simple issue around rewarding good performances and enjoyability. Possibly.

This is a great subject at a critical time for FI. I'd encourage everyone to genuinely think and debate for themselves, but the less personal and more balance the debate is the better it will be for everyone.