I believe it's crucial to be transparent about things that are openly observable and verifiable.
Encouraging forks and allowing the free market to determine the best path is always a wise strategy for a platform. Some ideas are simply too diverse to be nurtured under the same digital culture, much like branches of a tree growing in different directions, each seeking its own patch of sunlight.
In the past, the closed codebases of platforms like PeakD, Splinterlands, and Leo, coupled with the Binance listing of $Hive and no DEX listings, appeared to signal stagnation. Internally, the situation was compounded by a static witness structure of 30 votes for 20+1 slots and large delegation pools, which hindered internal fluctuation. Security was certainly more important than progression.
However, the winds of change are blowing. The introduction of sidechains, DEX listings, 2-Layer swap features, and bridges is bringing much-needed flexibility to the coin side of things. Ecency's growing strength, the ongoing Open Peak project with 700HBD a day, and the development of Communities 2.0 are all catalysts for innovation. They are like fertile ground, allowing entrepreneurs to branch out and fork as it suits their vision for the future.
My only concern remains with timing, a crucial factor. Honestly, innovation and technology base is just the toolkit. It's the first 15%, even if it's the hardest and most unlikely to occur. I don't see everything getting in shape before the different market peaks in 2024/2025.
If $Hive goes through a weak bull and the bears wake up, to rupture in a bunch of different forks would be a logical follow up for the emerging incentive situation. You don't build into a bear, knowing it will cost you years before seeing any green and voluntarily carry the luggage somebody else has left behind.