I think that the token/equity tension for acquisitions is misunderstood, and even if there were no equity, the outcome would likely be the same. First, I'm assuming that the Circle/Axelar deal was an acquihire. The complaint from AXL holders is understandable: they got nothing and the token rapidly lost value. In their view, the team has an ethical obligation to support an asset that they sold. But the obvious problem is that tokenholders don't own anything that Circle wants. There's no proprietary IP, no cashflows, no customers owned by either AXL holders or Interop Labs. The only thing that's valuable to the Buyer is the team. I claim that even if there was no equity in the AXL case, the outcome would likely be identical. The problem is that directing proceeds from an acquisition toward tokenholders harms the Buyer. From Circle's perspective, payments to AXL holders are dead money, and even the Interop Labs team unilaterally paying their own money to tokenholders would be suboptimal for Circle - that money is meant to incentivize the team, not to pay off a moral debt that Circle likely doesn't recognize. Even without equity, in an acquihire, the Buyer would simply contract separately with the team, leaving tokenholders again with nothing. Giving tokenholders legal rights over what the team does after a failed project seems like a bad idea.