Let's be clear: we're not against fix amendments. Take a good look, XRPL Labs votes yes on almost all of them. "More scrutiny than legacy code" isn't the bar. The two worst bugs were in or introduced by amendments that had gone through all that scrutiny. Both were only caught during voting. The vote is the last line of defense, and that's why we don't treat it as a formality. And it keeps happening. The idea that a "fix" can't harm the network is dangerous. The idea that UNL validators don't need to understand what they're voting on because it's labeled a fix is not sustainable. Everyone needs to do better and put in the work to ensure the continuity and security of the network, especially going forward in times like these. As Wietse said earlier: lots of new amendments and changes lately, a coordinated emergency config change by all validators, a coordinated closed-source hotpatch, and recent instability. We only vote when we are confident and understand what we're voting on. That takes time. XRPL's health and continuity rely heavily on the UNL NOT blindly voting amendments in. With today's software, exploits, and AI finding everything, being reliable is worth more than ever. So let me be very blunt: how many amendments have you voted yes on that later needed an emergency solution or a follow-up fix? Our caution has paid off. If you think our approach is wrong for the network, make that case, even if that means trying to get us off the UNL. We’ll stand behind our track record.