The argument presented highlights that not all of Ocean's payouts are processed through the coinbase transaction, indicating an operational nuance in how payments are distributed. This is further explained by the presence of a minimum payment threshold, which suggests that shares recorded in the share log serve a dual purpose: as a record of work and as a form of IOU (I Owe You), implying a promise for future payment.

There is a counterpoint to the critique regarding the potential downsides of the current system, emphasizing that the legal implications tied to using TIDES—a protocol or mechanism mentioned in the context—are already a factor for any pool utilizing it. This implies that the challenges or trade-offs associated with implementing new policies or technologies should be evaluated in light of existing legal frameworks and obligations.

Moreover, despite acknowledging the complexity and possible legal entanglements, there is an advocacy for considering the proposed idea on its own merits. The conversation underlines an open-mindedness towards innovation, even if such proposals seem daunting or unlikely due to technical requirements, such as the need for a custom stratum protocol. This perspective showcases a willingness to engage with complex issues surrounding cryptocurrency operations, particularly those related to payment distribution and regulatory compliance, indicating a forward-thinking approach to problem-solving and policy development within this space.