There is nothing reasonable about turning an existing system that was never designed to keep chats at all, to do on a whim, where would cause irreparable damage to the common offering both internally and externally.

Once is a pass, but 24 hours is not nearly an established window that a medium can/should be made arbitrarily compliant. It would be a large precedent.

No it’s not. It’s unclear why some of the points are relevant to Binance’s health.

Edit: @rippercushions they are factually correct, but there is no context. With context, the points make even less sense.

Edit 2: @rippercushions Sorry then it’s not on your comment, just the parent’s proposal that it stands alone better than the speculation offered in the article.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Generally more words means more information.

You’d probably get fired for giving minimal information.

This is a red herring. The fact you’ve carried it out this far to the 3-5 mark is extraordinary. Most people move every two years just to overcome this effect.