Forgive me if this has been addressed elsewhere, but does the new bonus provision control for the possibility of a follow-on offering?  Such an event could significantly increase the SuperNET market cap (possibly triggering the bonus(es)), without benefiting existing UNITY holders on a per-token basis.  I wouldn't expect James to contemplate such a maneuver surreptitiously, but at the same time, a follow-on offering may at some point make sense, and it would be a shame to have the appearance of a conflict of interest in major financing decisions.

A simple tweak might be to explicitly compare the market cap of only the ICO-issued tokens, not any that may be subsequently issued.