As was their policy to improve decentralisation.
If the Cardano Foundation believes that the current K value is too high such that it justifies some single owner’s to run multiple pools, which are not saturated by their own pledge, then they should come out and say what they think the K parameter should be. It would be better for Cardano Foundation to have a stance on what they think the K parameter should be rather than completely undermining it’s meaning. By undermining it’s meaning they are actively working against community beliefs and values. Read the research paper, it is very clear what is the intended meaning of the K parameter. People who are “invested” in Cardano came here for these reasons.
And before @HeptaSean or others bring up this argument again about how the protocol doesn’t currently enforce the policy that the K parameter embodies, this does not mean that we should simply drop the policy. We do have social consensus mechanisms and we can redesign and build other tools which can help to drive our policy objectives.
Cardano Foundation has an easy way out if they believe the current K value is too restrictive. There is no need to destroy the K parameter’s meaning. They simply state what they think the K parameter should be changed to. If their thinking is that it is OK under the current settings for a single owner to run two pools then they should campaign to reduce K to 250. This operator can then amalgamate his two pools to become a single pool operator and we can all call it a day.