Not intentionally a social movement, but because it is money it must be a social movement. Money, by definition, is the most social good.

Not sure about "proper organization", but it has a stakeholder community composed of following:

Those 3 groups act as a natural checks-and-balance, not totally unlike "branches of government" theory.

One of the reasons why the "ossification" argument is on everyones mind (and also slightly pointless) is that everyone innately realizes building consensus for change among those 3 disparate groups is going to be very difficult.

Developers can release code, but not force everyone to run it. They need miners + users to buy-in.

I agree with the implied premise. I don't think genuine social movements have top down control. Those are not "movements", those are organizations with dictates/orders.

Any genuine social movement will be highly dynamic in nature. Real revolutions don't come from an edict, but come because thousands of different participants have a thousand different grievances.

Bitcoin happened to tap into many different sub-cultures. It strangely melds many "anti-corporate" and "equity" talking points of left, with hard economics and decentralized power talking points of right.