Honestly I think this is a good thing. A lot of people confuse minimum performance targets with the device's tech specs. The frame isn't worse performing with a lower target, since every game that runs a certain way still runs exactly the same unlike if the actual tech specs changed, just the threshold for the approval badge is lower, so more games will be considered verified. Sure, there will be less pressure for devs to optimize performance, but personally I would rather have (set of games x that exceeds 90) plus (other games that exceed 72) labeled as verified to boost the size of the verified library instead of setting a "premium" bar for the label and making the library look smaller - I think the frame needs the PR help of having a larger "looking" verified library. Plus I usually run my bigscreen in 75hz anyways and I think it's hardly noticeable (and would not feel out of place in the frame's all-rounder specs), so I think the average person is better off considering games that hit 72+ verified.

Plus, think of it another way: any game that the devs find hard to optimize past 72fps on the frame is not running the same graphics better on a quest to meet it's 90hz requirement. And anything that can be optimized for the quest's 90 or 120 modes will perform even better with the same settings on the frame's faster hardware - or be capable of matching the fps of the same game on quest but with the graphics settings turned up a little, so at the end of the day the lower limit is not a loss because the only reason any game would be stuck at the lower target is because it produces fidelity that the quest can't match.