Does this make sense to you? The PROTECTED need to be PROTECTED from the UNPROTECTED by forcing the UNPROTECTED to use the same “PROTECTION” that didn't PROTECT the PROTECTED. But even the PROTECTED are now less PROTECTED because the “PROTECTION” declines over time, so they need a “boost of PROTECTION” because the original PROTECTION failed to PROTECT... according to the makers with the liability shield that actually does PROTECT them from financial harm