Dear all, I have been thinking about the motivations given by some for voting Y/N on the 60d period and on the enforcement of the policy. My observation is that those who do not want the 60d grace period are mostly worried about the inefficiencies, for instance “unnecessary” delays in transferring between “good” actors. OTOH, those who want the grace period are mostly concerned with the risk of criminal actions that could benefit from a quick finalisation of the transfer. I wonder therefore if the issue here is the balance between efficiency and risk: if we want a system that is safer but slower, let’s have the 60d period, if we want a system that is fast but less safe, let’s eliminate the 60d. Similar considerations apply in the case of “optional” vs “compulsory” grace period. It seems obvious that those who are against the 60d want at least to be able to have the “opt out” possibility, while those who are convinced about the need for it want also to have it applied without exceptions (the reasoning behind this, as also pointed out in the call, is that the wrongdoers will be obviously opting out). In this situation the question is also whether the reduction of the length off the period could be a sort of a compromise that gives a bit to both parties - or whether the effect would be to make both parties unhappy because the result could be neither sufficiently fast nor sufficiently secure. I am for “slow and safe”, probably also due to age - younger people might have a different approach… :-) Have a nice weekend, Roberto