The Bitcoin core has definitely left the stage of rapid innovation. Instead, we can expect slow, consensus-based progress at best for the future. This is normal

The Bitcoin core has definitely left the stage of rapid innovation. Instead, we can expect slow, consensus-based progress at best for the future. This is normal for a successful protocol But that alone isn't indicative of the protocol's success, is it, can't that also be attributed to infighting? Committees may propose things, but they've not really taken over as it's still the community(those controlling the networks computational power) that decides what changes to adopt right? And the only people who can actually implement changes are those with access to the core right? Or former core people who've splintered off(XT.) So what do committees have to do with this?