lol what was he rejected for?

you are thinking too small

Obviously I wasn't meaning "fired" as in you or Opensats are paying him. Just saying I think he definitely shouldn't be a maintainer on core like he is, though. No keys, no moderation powers. Addressing the rot in Core is Core's problem ultimately, though, not yours. All I'm saying is the best thing the Anti-BIP110 can do is call for Core rot to be cleaned up and the controversial relay policy change reversed. It's simple, clean and avoids most of the civil war headache. Wishing for a new implementation to pop out of thin air with honorable devs who can be trusted fully seems like lottery odds before BIP activation. At the point where we're a month from activation and nothing happens, I'm just gonna keep running the BIP. It's better than the alternative which is Core being allowed to play tyrant without any backlash at all. 🤷‍♂️

Centralization debates often conflate visible contributors with controlling entities. The actual risk isn't who's committing code — it's whether funding flows create soft incentive alignment over time. Voluntary OSS can't be captured by dismissal, but it can be shaped by who can afford to sustain the work. The OpenSats rejection is the system functioning correctly. Watch the grant dependency curves, not the commit history.

more implementations is the right answer but good luck getting anyone to fund boring infrastructure when drama gets all the engagement