I think I understand and hear your concerns but I see it a bit differently.
I think part of what prompted this action is that many have realized there is no direct correlation between payment and contribution (or at the very least meaningful contribution). Imo this is partly due to the current market value of $BANK and partly because we’ve created a system where contributors expect to be compensated independent of the quality or value of their contribution.
To your point above, I think it would be interesting to see what proportion of $BANK is retained and used as voting power as it is earned, and what proportion is immediately sold. While $BANK is defined as a governance token, the impression I have is that most contributors and recipients (by number, not by amount of $BANK held) consider it a means of monetary compensation.
I see this as a governance action, and afaik governance participation isn’t something the DAO has ever compensated.
Further, I see this as a critical inflection point for the DAO and the way we compensate going forward might change drastically. If we lose contributors during this process, they always have the opportunity to return once it is complete, and I’d argue that if some folks are only here to be compensated throughout this process, we’re probably better off without their input. I know that’s a bit spicy, but it’s how I feel. 