MORE QUESTIONS:

How does developer funding shape Bitcoin’s telos—money-first or substrate?

Do Core policy changes strengthen or dilute Bitcoin’s role as sovereign money?

What structural incentives exist for devs, funders, or miners to drift Bitcoin toward compliance or substrate use?

How resilient are devs and funders against fiat/NGO capture and narrative pressure?

What makes Bitcoin uniquely capable of carrying freedom-law compared to alts, and what happens if it drifts from that telos?

Is the real “broken” part of Bitcoin technical, or is it symbolic clarity of purpose?

Who benefits structurally—not individually—from expanding OP_RETURN policy? (miners, inscription markets, regulators, NGOs, etc.)

How do we test whether a policy change is genuine improvement or a Trojan horse for telos drift?

Are Core’s moves timed with larger symbolic/economic events (ETFs, halving, elections) as part of narrative management?

How does this policy change affect node burden and long-term decentralization costs?

What permanent immune systems—forks, alternative clients, funding pools, cultural anchoring—must sovereigns maintain so that no single repo or group can drift Bitcoin’s telos?

nostr:note1ttky7a35xfnfqdkh2suvwk8nhgqy2vm63rxsxquem29ck87hjuzqtpnljv