He was down voted for illogically raising the wealth of Dotcom. By all means argue that it's too low, but the decision for this cost should come from the company's financials and the potential benefits of that spend, not the size of the house its owner lives in.

I mention his wealth because it's specifically from his business and offers a comparison to his ability to pay for security fixes that threaten the very operation of such business.

It's like saying hey this business is worth $100k a day to me but I'm only willing to pay $10k to anyone who can show me a problem that would expose all my customers and bring it to a halt, perhaps permanently if the data got into the wrong hands, foreign governments, etc.

A business can't go to the founder as its own piggybank to get out of bad decisions. It's not only a legal and accounting nightmare, but it's bad for the business, too.

I didn't really care about who has what money. I just agreed with his point that 10k doesn't beat the black market for something this high profile.