I would support a proposal along the following lines: - Some analysis of whether CUs are metered appropriately, and if not, addressing that in the same proposal - Some analysis of expected block builder behavior under whatever proposed change - If it's intended for fees to increase, a commitment to a schedule here rather than leaving it vague - A clear commitment to no other in-protocol fee changes (or at least fee increases) for some time period--e.g. at most one such proposal passes per year, to prevent proposals passing via exhaustion of social layer The current governance process does not solicit feedback from applications at all. If that's intended, that's fine and heard, but seems suboptimal if Solana is intended to be a competitive platform for applications.