I hear your concern, and I respect the desire to protect Bitcoin’s integrity. But I’d gently push back on a few things.

First, who decides what Bitcoin’s “purpose” is? Satoshi left us with a tool -not a religion. Bitcoin is programmable money, and its potential is still unfolding. To say we already know all its purposes is like claiming we understood the internet fully in 1994.

Second, consensus isn’t a static idea owned by a loud subset of voices. It’s not tweets, feelings, or vibes. It’s what the nodes accept, and what the network runs. If the code is valid, and it doesn’t violate the rules, then the protocol itself is saying: this is allowed.

Finally, experimentation is not erosion. It’s evolution. Bitcoin is resilient precisely because it absorbs pressure and adapts - without central planning. If something truly violates Bitcoin’s core principles, it will die off. If not, it might just be the next step in its story.

That’s the beauty of a permissionless system: no one has to ask for approval to innovate.