This is a very important point. I've spent the last 12 months critiquing Core as objectively as I can, while remaining fully allocated to the asset. That's not a contradiction. That's what honest scrutiny looks like from someone with skin in the game. The response has been instructive. I've been told I'm an idiot who doesn't understand Bitcoin. That I'm a bad actor. That I'm personally attacking developers, when every critique I've made has been structural. People doing less technically rigorous work have been welcomed into the community because they stayed quiet on governance. I've been kept at arm's length for the same reason. What's clarifying about this is that the reaction pattern is the proof. A healthy decentralized network doesn't need its critics to be discredited. It doesn't need governance scrutiny treated as an attack on the protocol. The fact that it does tells you something about what the network has actually become. Bitcoin was designed so that no single party could capture it. That turned out to be a technical claim, not a social one. The social layer has different failure modes, and we're in one of them.