We are humans that have organized to solve problems with open source software, just like other software you use every day. 

 All open source software has leadership whether you recognise it or not.

The question is, is this leadership more of a risk than it is a benefit. 

An anarchic leadership reduces the risk of things changing too fast that only large corporations can keep up.

But it also increases the risk of paralysis and implementing ideas that almost everyone agrees is best, because no one has the power to pursue anything decisively. 

We think our way of doing things allowed us to design things from first principles and have a very minimalist and well reasoned architecture. 

If you listen to us more often, you might be convinced that we are very protective of the simplicity of the core protocol, pushing most of complexity to higher layers or optional APIs, exactly because we want to build one foundational layer on top of another, as opposed to spontaneous house of cards. 

 Good points, but I think you need also to SHOW that it's a open protocol.  And be transparent.  That is the only way to grow to a mid size protocol and bigger.  A new user needs to be able to come to the protocol and see in a few clicks how it's goverened, who controls it, what the licenses are and what the evolution is.  Developers will ask these questions.  Ubuntu is a good example of doing this. 

 All corporations are subservient to the state. If you do anything the government doesn't like, any they threaten your CEO's family, what are the odds pubky vanishes overnight? 

 Let's say the chances are 100%, would that matter if the protocol is simple enough that anyone can pick it up and continue working on it?

So, if you see is over complicating stuff, fork our work and keep it simple. I will appreciate that pressure. 

 I am afraid though, you will find it a bit hard to compete with me no simplicity, I am a bit brutal on that side, brutally lazy 😁 

 Your protocol doesn't seem simple to me. In the same time I've spent reading about it and only scratching the surface, someone can read NIP-01 and understand nostr. 

 All *humans* are subject to state violence. 

There is no less risk for the core maintainers of a foss repo than to the c-level of a corp.

Both are fully open-source, both are dependent on a few sources of funding, both are led by corruptible killable humans.

Otherwise, I challenge you to find a more principled benevolent leader than myself. 

 I agree. 
It organized from 1 central entity, for now. Maybe that can change. But not knowing that entity makes me skeptical too. It requires me to do my own research first. So verify to gain trust. It can be technical cutting-edge, but used in the wrong hands it will fail. I like worse technology better, driven by a grassroots movement.