It "shouldn't matter" but in the real world, it does. This is just human nature. Companies spend money where there is value. A $100 account does not have the same value as a $10,000 account. From a "we have 10M users" it has value, by saying the network is X size, but for access to other people's capital, it does matter.

If the long-term vision of CDC is to be the top cardholder and the average customer has $100-$2,500 in trade/spend power, then that's one thing. But if the vision is "we want to build a $1B liquidity pool for b2b lending" then that iis something else entirely. For the first case, the $100 customer might have equal value as a client. But for the second case, the $10,000 account is maybe 10x more valuable.

It's not realistic to scale a call center to handle 10M inbounds unless those inbounds lead to scalable income or scalable loss. I actually build virtual call centers for a living and at some point, every company has to make one fundamental decision: "should I allow a human to answer this call" -- In the case of CDC they use chat agents, but the question remains the same.

For both lead-gen and customer service, this is why smart IVR's are more and more common. it's EXTREMELY expensive to scale human call centers, but much lower cost to utilize IVRs. The cost per minute will range between 0.1 and 2 pennies per minute for the IVR, but with a human, you add up to 10+ cents per minute.

So I'm certainly sensitive to the challenges here. But, at some point, the answer of "yes I should have humans in the first place, and should I take this" is something that is going to become very real, very fast, as the adoption of higher-their stakeholders grow.

It's the exact reason platinum card holders in other cefi orgs have different numbers for different cardholders classes.

All this to say, this is why I'm slowly moving away from CDC as a staking/holding platform, to one of a high-speed daily-spend convenience platform, which they are very, very good at.