The island piece is the most direct acknowledgement yet that the parachain “export only” model never moved DOT demand, and that coretime revenue has stayed trivial next to issuance. Naming that plainly is useful, and a more flexible coretime is the right thing to be selling. I also have no issue with two tokens, or with the point that a stable asset like dotUSD is easier to sell access against than a volatile DOT.
That accessibility case is real, but it answers a different question than the one a few of us were raising. Denomination and cadence are separate axes. Denomination is what you quote the price in. Cadence is whether you pay once or keep paying. The flow question is about cadence, so the dotUSD point leaves it standing.
Cadence is the part I’d still push on. A pay-once token ties the DAO’s revenue to how fast usage grows, and that fades as the network matures. A recurring rent ties revenue to the level of usage, and it reclaims state that goes dead, whatever it’s priced in.
Denomination has its own cost worth saying out loud. If JAMKB sells for dotUSD, DOT benefits only when the DAO later votes to turn that reserve into a DOT buyback or a dotUSD return to holders. That per-cycle discretion is a fair part of why DOT still isn’t priced as if JAM works. If dotUSD is the pick for reach, it would help to commit that conversion as a standing rule, not an “all of the above” decided fresh each time.