From my admittedly tangential read, there is a hypothesis floated in legal circles that cypherdoc's involvement is somewhat more complex than simple shilling. That is, his wallet acts as a protected buffer and his shilling fees exist as an excuse and to escape future legal 'violence'. Whether I like or trust the legal system or not, I'd rather see the funds I put in to support it (my taxes) used to tug at this string than to help resolve disputes between other faceless corporate giants which is where most of the money goes. That's only because I happen to be into Bitcoin though. Ideally the court system and government generally would studiously ignore Bitcoin, but that ship has already sailed.
At least you admit repeating gossip and narrative, rather than primary sources.

Cypherdoc's involvement as a paid endorser, who took on the role of a proxy for the community by visiting HF in person,
started and stopped long before anyone knew business conditions for 3rd gen ASIC companies was about to take a turn for the worse.