It's a fair criticism but it's a fine line as well. There are very few honest actors in the crypto, multichain world. Most are driven by perverse incentives and have no interest in actually improving Bitcoin. It is a lot to ask of people to be able to decipher and learn from the handful of good actors amongst a sea of bad (not all necessarily bad, but I am lumping those driven merely by perverse incentives here).

As an example: What am I to make of an individual such as Justin Bons who manages a european crypto fund and spends an inordinate amount of time bashing bitcoin and promoting proof of stake chains? Are some of his criticisms fair, possibly. Has his hedge fund outperformed, net of fees, simply holding bitcoin for the past 5 years, no. Does his business and livelihood go away if there is no "multichain" world, yes. Does he need Bitcoin dominance to erode in order to retain his investors, yes. So, is Justin an honest actor, with honest criticisms or does he just really need to foment distrust in Bitcoin so he can sell managing a portfolio of 30 assets to investors? Hard to say but hard to take him seriously with such perverse incentives.

I don't have an easy answer, I do agree at times bitcoiners can be too rigid and closed minded. It's reasonable to at least honestly debate the validity of things. But I also think sound, uncensorable, money available for billions to use is a moral imperative and until that is achieved I am disinterested in abc feature available on xyz chain and even more disinterested in deciphering if xyz chain really needs a token or if its feature set is something that can be added to additional bitcoin layers down the line after billions have access to what they need most.

Cheers,
GR