Thank you for the update on the planned use of leverage for $LSTR. (A disclosure of your >$8000 holdings in LEO would have been appreciated for transparency.)

The introduction of leverage certainly adds an interesting dimension to the token’s future mechanics, but it raises more questions than it answers. Frankly, jumping ahead to “what’s the leverage ratio?” feels premature when there are far more foundational aspects of the project that remain unclear.

The fund has stated that all proceeds will be reinvested in $LEO and promised never to unstake their holdings. This raises several critical questions:

• Where will the funds for servicing the loan come from?
• Are the loan terms fixed or variable?
• Who is accepting staked tokens - bound by a promise never to be unstaked - as collateral?

The only mechanism by which such "collateral" could be "liquidated" without violating that promise, that I'm aware of, is through delegation. If that’s the case, does this mean the loan provider is someone within the Hive ecosystem? If so, what are the implications for decentralization and influence within Hive? Are there safeguards to prevent over-leveraging, such as debt-to-asset ratio limits? And what happens to the fund’s operations if $LEO liquidity becomes constrained?

Additionally, if $LSTR is called or needs to service its debt, how can this be accomplished without liquidating $LEO? None of this addresses the more fundamental issue of the lack of a mechanical connection between $LSTR and $LEO. This disconnect remains a central concern for me.

While the mention of leveraging clarifies the fund’s planned direction, it further highlights the contradiction in the advice to simply HODL. Leverage requires active management and careful oversight—concepts that stand at odds with the idea of a passive hold strategy.

Based on the available information, it seems plausible that the loan provider could come from within Hive, potentially benefiting from a large delegation of $LEO. If so, this could serve as a mechanism for consolidating influence—for instance, amplifying someone like Khal’s existing position within Hive to bolster a bullish attitude toward LeoFinance and the $LEO token.

Ultimately, transparency around these mechanics is essential. Ensuring that the fund—and by extension, Hive’s ecosystem—rests on a sustainable and equitable foundation requires clarity, not conflicting promises. Right now, instead of transparency, we’re seeing a series of claims that seem to contradict one another.