I dont think there is malice either. But they exaggerate marketing thats for sure.
I they have given lots of money to bitcoin core contributors and other bitcoin projects in grants to help with development.
The issue I have with them is the competing cryptocurrency, bitcoin miners can censor stacks transactions, and the wrapped bitcoin token is held in a SEC approved custodian.
BTC was supposed to be p2p with no custodians and middle men.
I hate on LN, Liquid and Rootstock too.
LN is becoming centralised with central liquidity hubs to route payments and the fact 90% of users are using custodial wallets. In the future these can enforce KYC, and become regulated by governments and custodial wallets can steal you bitcoin at any time.
Liquid requires trusting your funds with the Liquid federation who are unknown and unverifable members. The state can easily regulate via KYC and censor certain wallet addresses on this network. The transaction fees go to blockstream.
Rootstock requires trusting a federation but you can verify the members of the federation. But still has the same risks of censorship and regulations like Liquid. Rootstock is merge mined so the fees go to miners making it 2nd most secure network after bitcoin in terms of hash rate.
Drivechain L2s require trusting miners like users already trust miners for L1 transactions so most decentralised, secure and censorship resistant. Bringing any cool idea to bitcoin layer 2s, like Monero, Z-cash, Ethereum, Stacks, Bcash, Potential BIP ideas, all using BTC as native currency (shitcoins without the shitcoins). The downside is that it requires a soft fork to bitcoin core which requires approval from core developers, node runners and miners.