Alex Marcos/Chaincode are another such example, at least as far as Core is concerned. Everyone serves their own interest, to the extent they align with broader interest is incidental.

It's the entities we don't know about, operating from behind cover, that are even more of a vulnerability. Blockstream has raised what hundreds of millions, billions? Where did that come from and who pulls the board strings? At what point does Tether's shareholders interest start to deviate from the Bitcoin commoner? Also easy to make the case that Blockstream is a Tether subsidiary, many Bitcoin companies are, in effect.

People gave Saylor shit for being against funding development, but I don't think they heard what he was actually saying. The only way to discourage activist development is to discourage active development.

That's what's so magical about proof-of-work consensus, the only resistance Bitcoin has against human organization is human disorganization... but that doesn't obviate vigilance as enough resources and time can still change the walking meat that ultimately gives Bitcoin value.

I want to question whether building a generosity/patronage model of software development is good for Bitcoin.

There are a lot of good projects out there, maintained to very high standards. There should be a way that the people who do that work can make revenue.