Thanks Marek - truly. I really appreciate you making space for reflection and for naming the real stewardship many validators brought to Celo (often quietly, and often at personal cost). 
I’ll keep this brief because many of us are still processing how flawed and limited the multiple-choice process felt in the end. My biggest sadness is that your more balanced pathway wasn’t actually on the ballot. In particular: reduce the elected set, but also adjust (and potentially raise/remove) the max cap in the D’Hondt allocations so the outcome reflects total stake and preserves the most decentralization possible while still right-sizing the set to what’s actually needed for RPC services. That was the best lever combination in my view - and it would have avoided the blunt-force outcomes we ended up voting on. I referenced this specifically here (Point 2): Reduce Elected Validator set from 110 to 55 - #36 by marek
… exploring mitigations (commission field, etc.), I’m in. But I’d strongly prefer we start from restoring credible commitments and fixing the governance mechanics that got us here - then build forward with a transparent, auditable path for RPC reliability and sequencer transition.