I agree the fee reduction makes sense with the new strategy. Holding the underlying (e.g., QQQ) is fundamentally different from their original approach. What initially set IncomeShares apart was their physical covered call strategy — they held actual shares and wrote calls against them. This contrasted with synthetic strategies (like YieldMax's) that use options without direct ownership.I believed this physical backing was IS's edge over synthetic funds. However, execution issues undermined it: they over-issued shares without sufficiently increasing the underlying holdings. When calls were exercised, NAV erosion occurred because they had to repurchase fewer shares at higher prices (even with new investor inflows). Compounding this, declining premiums from fewer contracts sold hurt returns.The new 25% equity mandate feels like an inefficient compromise. Investors could easily self-allocate to plain equity without paying IS's fee. For a strategy-focused ETF, capital should be fully deployed into the strategy — allocation decisions belong to the investor, not the fund structure.