Chaincode Labs is astroturfing Bitcoin Core by funding & training devs to push permissive data storage (e.g., expanding OP_RETURN limits), creating a false sense of community consensus. Ex: Antoine Poinsot’s proposal to raise OP_RETURN from 80 bytes to ~4MB, backed by Peter Todd, is framed as “harm reduction” but enables non-financial bloat like inscriptions, favoring layer-2 systems over Bitcoin’s monetary focus. With ties to wealthy donors like Balaji Srinivasan ($500k, investor in Citrea) & centralized Manhattan offices, Chaincode’s influence steers protocol toward BitVM/Ethereum-like agendas, undermining decentralization. This “corporate capture” fuels distrust, forks like Bitcoin Knots, & accusations of prioritizing profit over sovereignty.
Discussion
If you consider the Core devs that are directly funded by Chaincode as one actor, the picture becomes much clearer. Chaincode has successfully attacked and compromised Bitcoin Core.
Bitcoin Core maintainers tied to Chaincode Labs. Here’s the breakdown based on funding, residencies, and affiliations as of Sep 2025.
Maintainers with Chaincode Ties
• Anthony Towns (ajtowns): Funded by Chaincode, active in Core maintenance & research.
• Marco Falke (MarcoFalke): Ex-maintainer, Chaincode-funded, stepped down 2023.
• Pieter Wuille (sipa): Chaincode grants, moved from Blockstream to Chaincode ties.
• John Newbery (jnewbery): Chaincode-funded, co-founded Bitcoin Optech.
• Gloria Zhao: Chaincode residencies & funding, focuses on P2P/mempool.
Maintainers without Chaincode Ties
• Andrew Chow (achow101): Blockstream-affiliated, no Chaincode links.
• Michael Ford (fanquake): Funded by BitMEX/Gemini, handles GUI/releases.
• Hennadii Stepanov (hebasto): OKCoin/Paradigm funding, no Chaincode ties.
• Wladimir J. van der Laan (laanwj): Ex-lead, MIT DCI-funded, stepped back.
• Jonas Schnelli (jonasschnelli): GUI maintainer, Marathon-funded, less active.