Finding time to answer more in length.

Sure, I would like to make one observation about your pull request comment on the independence disclaimer on the standing, funding and employment w.r.t Brink of some professional contributors to Bitcoin Core.

I think it’s a good initiative to make such disclaimer and remind that in the situation of controversial topics like OP_RETURN and mempool policy, any Bitcoin Core professional contributor currently employed by Brink is fully entitled to his plain freedom of review and open discussions.

However, as someone with experience with the (bitcoin) open-source world, one, or at least me, I find it surprising that Brink don’t have independence provisions directly in their employment contracts with its employed professional contributors.

E.g historically, Bitmex open-source agreements had the following independence provision: “The Grantor agrees not to use the grant as influence to encourage the Grantee to support or implement particular changes to the Bitcoin protocol rules on block validity”.

In my view, it’s not exactly the same tangible level of independence, when a director of an open-source non-profit has to take the initiative to notify by email all its grantees that they’re free to engage as they wish on a controversial technical subject, than when said grantees have de jure independence provisions in their employment contracts to express themselves on controversial technical subjects.

Independence should be the default, not something you have to communicate when the subject of controversy has already been raised.

Apologies by advance if it sounds a very rigid observation — but I do remember when Brink was just a very vague idea pitched to me in a Harlem breakfast early 2020. cc @schmidty