Neat that you noticed. No counter arguments were provided. Cyberblocks arguments all assume central planning of internal fees, liquidity and deflation, while also assuming sheer stupidity of any dissenters of this mode of operation.

Bitcoin was not designed to rely on central planning. An emergency fork to restore the order was needed at this point. Whether it survives or no, that we'll have to see.

But you can't excuse the developers intentionally planning for

• a full mempool
• high fees on all transactions
• scarcity of timestamped transactions
• a high minimum needed to transact (an effect of the former, but also argued for)
• the resulting (therethrough arbitrarily imposed) hyperdeflation
• forcing users towards "second layers" that use a different security model (that for the most part btw are not themselves even sidechains)

A genius plan to some and I'm ashamed to admit that I encouraged it. It doesn't make sense in reality and won't help establish Bitcoin as a currency, cash, money or in the long run even "digital gold".

It's a failed economic policy that relies on active management.