There’s a conflation between “user” and “economically significant node”. The story is great and actually isn’t missing much- but how he frames the conclusion is very misleading since it deceives people into believing that grassroots users were the victors. They benefitted for sure- but mostly they weren’t part of the real fight.

…And this is relevant today because most people still think that grassroots users (who don’t run economically significant infrastructure) have more power than they actually do.

Cap was never in question, separate issue entirely

Thanks FTX 😂

Hodlings aren’t really a powerful lever tho… unless you’re planning on dumping and tanking the value of the chain split you don’t agree with or something like that.

Really hard to see the upside of that for exchanges especially since they are incentivized to be neutral.

Even if they didn’t have what they say they had (I agree likely in many cases) the real power was in controlling the settings of the transaction flows.

But let’s talk about POR merkle roots in OP_RETURN..

Depends what you define as “threat”. What are you worried about?

The hodlers don’t have any power and never did is basically what I’m saying. You are at the whims of what these other groups feel is most important to them. One of those things might be your loyalty and usage of their products, so their reputation in the “hodlers” eyes matters to a certain degree. But if you aren’t even using their systems and off in the woods somewhere by yourself with your node not transacting then they don’t need to care about you and neither does the system.