You just proved my case better than I could. "Core devs weight opinions with their opinion on the contributor... people not in the club are likely to be ignored completely." That's capture. Not vote-rigging - club membership. You admit Core is a closed syndicate where 93 node operators get "0 weight" because they're "not in the club," while Citrea-connected devs (Lopp - Citrea investor, Poinsot - pushing Citrea's use case) get their PRs merged in 52 days. "Sybil resistance in decision making" is a fancy way of saying unaccountable dictatorship. Bitcoin nodes are supposed to be sovereign - you run the software, you choose the policy. Instead, Core has "sybil resistant" governance that filters out the actual users in favor of the GitHub committers and their VC-funded friends. If the community gets "0 weight," who gets 100%? Maintainers with corporate sponsorships (Block/Spiral, Chaincode) pushing changes for specific companies (Citrea) against the explicit will of node operators. That's not sybil resistance - that's regulatory capture with extra steps. You call it meritocracy. I call it removing the steering wheel and telling the passengers they don't get a vote because they're not in the driver's club. Thanks for confirming the capture thesis.