It depends. In the case of FullRBF for example, you could say Bitcoin needed people to not compile custom clients to bypass RBF restrictions to demonstrate that mempool is not consensus and that the mempool policy was easy to go around. Bitcoin users have to fortify against (what these people would call an attack) by being smarter about how they think about on-chain transactions.

So if I saw some change was being held back by complacency, I think I would attack Bitcoin. I think sometimes we need a hacker, a bad guy, to keep us from getting comfortable, but a tempered bad guy of course. Just bad enough to get people in action to defend Bitcoin and themselves, but not more than that.

If Bitcoin depended on me alone, no one would trust bitcoin. If it were up to me, people would see Bitcoin as something centralized. It is my opinion