I would understand these attacks better if Saylor was trying to get some personal business advantage.
Based on my read of the situation, Saylor just doesn’t want devs to screw up the base protocol. ODELL implied that funding was offered but with “strings attached”.
That apparently was unacceptable to these folks on nostr so hence the personal attacks and chaos that polarized and set the community against each other.
I would like to remark that I'm not particularly a fan of Saylor.
Nonetheless, I guess he's a guy that knows how to protect his own interests. My point is: why do we "all" act as being annoyed by the fact that he minds his own business? He didn't act as a cypherpunk from the beginning either and he was always focused on the "compliance" of the Bitcoin public reputation with the wall street financial tendencies. The "Energy" narrative, although accurate, is a clear signal that Bitcoin (and Bitcoiners) shall not include the "anarchyst-cyperpunk" ideas in the Bitcoin public narrative, at least in his opinion..."billionaiers don't want to invest into crypto-anarchist ideas".
Now again, I do not agree with what he says, but were we really convinced that he would became an anarchyst? I think that he deluded a lot of people.
Anyways, Bitcoin must go on and the path to make it more suitable for the masses is its destiny. In some way or the other we must work to make bitcoin more private, transferrable and hopefully enable everyone to achieve a good level of sovereignty. I guess he will understand and reframe his opinions, because if Bitcoin does not evolve it simply stops being the best tool to freedom. Sitting and waiting for the Providence to change stuff was never an option, if we don't make the stuff there is no stuff. And Saylor knows it.
