What caught me off guard with mira was the gap between how the economic security layer is described and where the actual incentive weight lands. $MIRA tokens are positioned as the backbone of a trustless AI coordination system, but when you trace the staking mechanics, the heaviest rewards concentrate at the infrastructure layer — node operators, validators — well before the agents doing the cognitive work see meaningful returns. #mira frames this as a bootstrapping necessity, which is defensible, but it means the people most exposed to model unreliability — the end users coordinating tasks through @Mira - Trust Layer of AI — are also the last to receive the security guarantees the model promises. There's a design choice buried in there: economic security, in this architecture, protects the network's continuity first and the user's outcome second. That ordering isn't hidden exactly, but it's not foregrounded either. I keep thinking about what it means to call something a "security model" when the thing being secured is primarily the protocol's own liveness, not the intelligence it's supposed to deliver.