I agree the verification process was flawed. It was supposed to be "this person is who they seem to be", and it became also a symbol of prestige. That needed to

I agree the verification process was flawed. It was supposed to be "this person is who they seem to be", and it became also a symbol of prestige. That needed to be addressed, likely by being a bit more available (though I don't think available to all is the right move), and also by just suspending/banning anyone who broke rules badly enough to get their badge taken away. But blasting the doors open and removing a symbol of trust is a pretty clear example of throwing out the baby with the bath water. And I agree more explicit tags are also good, but they became necessary because Elon nuked the previous system. A few gentle changes could have addressed all the problems. The kind of toxicity and algorithmic pushing of content on Twitter isn't quite like other platforms. Users are regularly exposed to content from deliberately inflammatory users. Your timeline can be filled with retweets, suggested content, or replies to accounts you don't follow by accounts you do. Adding a monetary reward for being inflammatory before addressing the toxicity is the problem. Adding revenue share to Twitter is like throwing money into a mosh pit; it wasn't done thoughtfully enough to not make things worse. If Musk wanted to expand revenue share, he could have done it in thoughtful ways. Expanding the subscriptions feature would have been a good start.