Fundamentally, if I’m asked about the conflict here I’ll describe in the following way.

You have 2 types of open-source developers in bitcoin open-source.

The first group, sincerely believe in bitcoin mission of censorship-resistant money, but if they have a hard choice to make, i.e between independence and a comfortable salary at the end of the month, they will always take the second alternative. Let’s not make angry the corporate hand that feed you, after all. And being your own boss or in charge, that’s very scary with all the responsibilities, you know…Typically Matt Corallo.

I would say that’s 80% of the contributors.

The second group, sincerely believe in bitcoin mission of censorship-resistant money too, but they don’t see themselves contributing on bitcoin, without sacrificing their personal independence. It’s free and open-source code but it’s also yourself staying free in the process. The folks who prefer to stay self-sovereign on the software run, on their finance and their responsibilities.

I would say that’s 20% of the contributors.

The problem is when the first group, more numerous in people, are starting to instrumentalize code of conduct and moderation rules, at the demand of their corporate backers, to push out the first group out of the bitcoin development forums.

At the end of the day, independent people, they might have their interests more aligned with the end-users, but that makes things slower as you know "we’re busy we have quarterly newsletter to write to our shareholders” so shut up !

(…I’ve enough friends who have been at Goldman Sachs to make an IPO if need…it’s not magic it’s just a lot lot of downsides…)

In my view, you should be free to work on bitcoin open-source, without having to bind the knee or ask permission to a random CEO with a flat listed company stock price or a bullshit messiah who never has contribute one line of code to bitcoin.

We reject: kings, presidents and voting. That’s the bitcoin way.

It’s a hill I have no problem to fight on as long as I’ll have to.