There may be intricacies regarding having to provide some funding, so it’s easy to just cut it instead of jumping through hoops to remove it. It might be just for the optics of saying they didn’t remove funding, they just reduced it to “prevent fraud” and then they never mention that they reduced by 90%. Maybe so that if it goes over well with their base they can cut it again for some extra bump in the news cycle. I do wish the article mentioned if there was a mandatory requirement for funding though.
I don’t understand. Why don’t they just go for 100% if it’s what they want… what’s the point of leaving the 10%?
There may be intricacies regarding having to provide some funding, so it’s easy to just cut it instead of jumping through hoops to remove it. It might be just for the optics of saying they didn’t remove funding, they just reduced it to “prevent fraud” and then they never mention that they reduced by 90%. Maybe so that if it goes over well with their base they can cut it again for some extra bump in the news cycle. I do wish the article mentioned if there was a mandatory requirement for funding though.