I'm not trying to pick a fight nor to create drama, just dissect the information that's out there in a meaningful way that fuels discussion.

I did not commit to anything, nor did I say I'd like to take any specific % from any specific source.

You didn't but @blocktrades did and you casted your vote at the corresponding comment implying you do support the suggested 20% cut.

Just dissecting, not dramatizing.

I believe that enabling a new system to fund development and marketing proposals will be far more direct and efficient then the current (ab)use of the reward pool. I never said I wanted to take 20% off authors.

I completely agree with you on this and repeat answer to quotation #1

And if price drops another 20% or more we'll be in the same situation. In USD terms from our $8USD high to our $0.22 usd low we've already dropped ~ 97% . We're still here.

Exactly, but consider that it may not be the right time to try and do something like this when peoples spirits already beaten up to the lowest point they have been at since joining the platform. If the same question was raised during a bull market, a lot less people would speak up against it.

I made a claim about my own personal belief. I'm allowed to do that without you being entitled to an explanation.

You did, but stating that it will bring value to our chain of blocks made me think about how are you able to make such an unverifiable claim.

This will only lead to even more cancelled public services and degraded network infrastructure - at these prices we're not making as much as you seem to think, and witnesses like myself running public services and funding non profit initiatives are already making a gamble on future price recovery.

What makes you think that? As mentioned in the post, I bet that if all of the top 20 consensus witnesses decided to pack their bags now, there would be quite a lot of competent, eager, low ranking witnesses, ready to take their spot. Don't you think?

No

I already knew that and it was simply a rhetorical question asked for the sake of irony. You didn't have to answer it.