I think you're reading too much into it. The point is simpler: if we are to take the argument that "devs know best because they have proven themselves" at face value, the only dev we could credit as having any evidence of being a good incentive designer is Satoshi, since he is the one who designed the incentives. I'm not idolizing Satoshi, just pointing out that the other devs have no track record on that front, so it wouldn't make sense to expect them to be particularly skilled at it.
Where do you want to go with that strawman "devs know best..."?
The more-than-one-dimension thinking is much simpler:
The "dev" members of the core development team were (and are) the people who are willing to lie and misrepresent on absolutely any issue for some short term gain. Those lies aren't only related to the economic issues, they are also related to the strictly technical matters.
I would expect that any non-one-dimensional person will recognize the current discussion as another variant of "how many angels can fit in the mempool?"
Three years ago it was "[POLL] Multi-sig or scalability--which is more pressing?"
blah blah blah blah
Gentle reminder to the other bitcoin developers: it is generally best not to feed trolls. Use the ignore button.
The
immoral equivalent of Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, Gregory Maxwell (and others)pontificating on the database technology would be an ophthalmologist (like cypherdoc) giving supposedly professional advice on complications of pregnancy. Fortunately for all of us the "docs" have a code of ethics.
Unfortunately for us there's no ethical code for the "devs". Sa anyone can pontificate about mempool, which is basically a really lame implementation of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-memory_database .
It doesn't take years of medical studies to understand the difference between ophthalmologist and obstetrician.
It shouldn't need years of engineering studies to understand that there's no real technical discussion going on between the various sub-camps in the developer's camp.