@H2O I agree. There's a solution to this problem already so why continue punishing spenders because someone doesn't want to spend? From a business standpoint, it'd be dumb to further punish the spenders and reward the non spenders.
Figured but still shows that something needs to be done about inactive Capos. This could've been avoided if there was protocol to remove inactive capo. Prior to the incident the capo was MIA as u see from my initial post.