Generally, yes, on a risk adjustment basis. As I've said before, anything beyond that is additional surface risk.

Software that uses Bitcoin underneath is additional surface in which to lose it. Seed phrase handling has lost more Bitcoin than just about anything, seed phrases are not part of Core.

But reality is, added surface exists to meet usability demands. Few are inclined to use Core on a secure desktop, it'd be a nightmare if people thought they could install it on their daily driver.

That's why I don't see the point of different "implementations". One good "implementation"

That's a completely separate issue.

A single source of distribution itself becomes a honeypot of risk. People that download Bitcoin Core do so without thinking about it, that lack of discernment is more dangerous than discerning wrong. This is how Core became a political body, it has political power over people who just blindly download Core due to its legacy.

The only way to save Core is to archive it, and force adherents to move to a new repo, only if they deserve will people will follow. If they do, their reign becomes undisputed. Until then they're showing they fear being found undeserving of Core's legacy.

I'm more in the distribution camp than the implementation camp, a minimal consensus kernel that many Bitcoin distributions build around would decentralize where people download from while the narrower scope diffuses politics of the central library. Those respective distributions also create a fork standoff because its no longer a distribution monoculture.

The existence of multiple choices requires discernment, we don't have that now because there is a "safe" default.