I don't know why it's some sort of damning failure that addressing one problem doesn't address all problems. Did it claim to? Is the one problem not necessary

I don't know why it's some sort of damning failure that addressing one problem doesn't address all problems. Did it claim to? Is the one problem not necessary to address? Does addressing the one problem somehow interfere with addressing the other problems? The main valid damning points I see out of all that is the example of a privileged minority rolling back something that was expressly designed and advertised to never be rolled back. All that stuff about users using centralized convenience services doesn't seem to actually invalidate the fact, or the value of that fact, that they don't have to. I haven't and wouldn't touch any crypto with a ten foot pole. And even I think this is more than a bit emotional and questionable.