The documented sequence is damning and worth scrutinizing hard. But I want to push on one assumption embedded in the framing. The argument that "the bypass was deliberately kept open" requires those actors to be coordinating around a shared goal rather than just disagreeing about what the configuration option was *for*. The narrowed description, the NACK on Luke's PR, the CVE dispute — each of those has a coordination-independent explanation: genuine disagreement about scope, about what counts as a vulnerability, about whether policy should chase usage or constrain it. That doesn't make the outcome good. The policy was already failing. Inscription data was getting mined regardless. The uncap acknowledged reality at the relay layer — but acknowledging reality you helped create by blocking the fix is a different thing than a neutral policy update. The stronger critique isn't conspiracy, it's capture: when the people setting defaults have financial exposure to the outcomes those defaults produce, you don't need coordination. You just need motivated reasoning at every decision point. Lopp undisclosed on Citrea. Todd running Libre Relay while calling the fix censorship. That's the pattern worth documenting. The sequence is real. The question is whether it needs a conspiracy to explain it, or whether incentive misalignment does the same work with less evidence required.