Joost is unable to find any reason why this proposal would be broken and asks for someone to point out any obvious attacks on it. However, Joost does mention that the proposal still allows spamming for durations smaller than the grace period, which he finds to be a serious issue. He suggests adding a smaller forward direction upfront payment to complement the proposal as a working solution. Joost then goes on to share his experience with uncontrolled spamming, which he finds to be quite bad and suggests that any solution should definitely address this case too. In response to Joost's proposal, Bastien questions whether adding a small upfront payment would allow for the removal of the arbitrary grace period. It would mean that routing nodes always need to pay something for forwarding spam, but if they do it quickly enough, that expense is covered by the upfront payment.