I think the working thesis is that if I’m Saylor, the longer I can keep the Bitcoin the way it is, the longer I can keep the Government looking over “here” (Bitcoin is digital gold, nothing more, nothing to see), and the longer I can stack, unencumbered by regulators.

If Bitcoin scales as a medium of exchange, getting into more hands of the people around the world who truly need freedom: that’s a problem for Governments, and it’s a problem for MSTR when folks realize holding Bitcoin is better than holding exposure to one company’s Bitcoin treasury.

I could be way off. Either way, with Governments involved, millions of new Bitcoiners, corporations coming in, dev stand-offs: it’s going to be a bloody few years in Bitcoin and I’m here for it. 

 I think you are somehow right in your speculation, if Saylor is behaving that way is probably because if too many grants get assigned to core devs, then those devs might feel the need to perform all types of changes and start thinking of roadmaps, etc. Justify their grants sort of!

Plus it will attract other devs like flies. Do we really want to have devs who are there only/mainly for the money? It’s a dilemma! Some food for thought @ODELL 

 This is something I would love to see @odell openly discuss and address.  it would give me much more confidence in him.