"I wouldn't call it neutral. It still has a development team made up of people who decide the direction of the technology." The development team has no such po

"I wouldn't call it neutral. It still has a development team made up of people who decide the direction of the technology." The development team has no such power. They can raise a BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal), which goes through rigorous cycles of analysis. A huge amount of paranoid eyes will obsess over any change proposed. As for the development team itself, there's no THE development team. Rather, it's a highly diverse set of crypto businesses, non-profits, and individual volunteers. This diversity too helps to preserve common interests, rather than specific ones. Should the BIP survive the first round of extreme scrutiny, next a whopping 95% of miners need to signal that they support the change. But not even that is enough, nodes (validators, of which there are an extreme amount) can still reject the change. Which is what happened in 2017, when miners wanted to increase block size (which reduces decentralization) and the community blocked it, despite a 95% miner approval. Surely there's no such thing as 100% decentralization or neutrality at a theoretical level, but this is as close as it gets.