And it's not the CFO's job to know/understand these effects; its the CTO's job to. And it's the CTO's job to fight back on it if necessary, because its interfering with his domain. It's also the CTO's job to know whether or not its actually interfering with his domain, and its his job to argue that position. And ofc, its the CEO's job to look at both offers, and decide whether or not the cost of interference to development is worth the benefits to the financials. With perhaps the CFO/CTO coming to an agreement independent of the CEO where trivial, as an optimization, but the ultimate responsibility is on the CEO's hands.

It is absolutely not about simple cooperation: its competitive cooperation. The goal is shared, but the steps to achieve it are not. And because of specialization, we cannot cooperate by simply knowing the global state of things, and determining the best course of action. We can only know the parts we know (a subset of the global state), and optimize our local interest in hopes that our local optimizations will take use closer to the global optimization. And everyone is doing that, with a local view. The only person who truly intends to chase after the global optimization directly is the CEO.

You should be protecting your domain from competing interests, because everyone wants to have a say in your domain, whenever they can derive even minor benefits. They don't know the cost to your domain, or the benefits to it: they know the cost to their domain, and the benefits to their domain. They may have some idea of it, but ultimately its your own job to know your own domain, and defend it as necessary.

Development does not, and should not, know whats best for finance, and the same is true vice-versa. It's not their position to. They specialize in their own domains, and thats fine. Obviously an overly-aggressive defense, or interference, can be harmful, but it'd be ultimately stupid, and likely harmful, to blindly follow the orders of people who do not know your domain, in the spirit of cooperation.