If anything, the funding has corrupted them, as they opted for web extensions instead of extending or re-implementing their XUL framework, thereby removing sign

If anything, the funding has corrupted them, as they opted for web extensions instead of extending or re-implementing their XUL framework, thereby removing significant amounts of user control over the browser. We can now see the true intention behind web extensions, exemplified by Chrome's implementation of Manifest V3, which appears to be designed to make it challenging for web extension developers to keep up with the changes while maintaining privacy and user control, ultimately causing the extension ecosystem to fragment. This outcome could have been avoided if browsers had stuck to their own paths from the start. This trend has continued to this day, as evident in your mention of compromised privacy, where Mozilla may take some steps to protect users but then introduce subtle changes that include analytics and tracking. Additionally, the funding likely retained a lot of talent at Mozilla that could have otherwise contributed to the former SerenityOS's browser, now known as LadyBird, thereby diversifying the ecosystem.