You're using double standards acting like Blockstream pretending they should have dictatorship over Bitcoin isn't a social engineer takeover attempt itself.  Devs don't control Bitcoin.  Devs are politicians and we don't have a one party system.  If we did, Bitcoin would be centralized and worthless.  Whoever wants to rage quit because they don't get to be dictator and do everything their way, let them.  

I'm also tired of people pretending the Lightning Network is actually a sure thing.  I have my doubts about how it will work in the real world, and people like Anonymint claim it won't work at all.  Maybe it will, but people aren't very big into just trusting some group of people that they will maybe someday in the future increase scalability while price could either stagnate or go down until that happens.  Segwit is too little, too late, and LN is too far off.  There has to be some kind of bandaid for investors in the meanwhile until LN can be fully released and evaluated.

And please, don't even pull the "price doesn't matter" bullshit lol.  Bitcoin is a currency, if one of your main development goals isn't to increase it's network effect and value, then you're probably doing it wrong.  A currency is a consensus mechanism between individuals in lieu of barter.  In order to fulfill that goal, the largest number of people possible have to be holders or it's either harder for them to do business, or they can't do business at all.  This means sane Bitcoin development has to constantly be trying to expand capacity to fit more users.  Unless capacity is already high enough for world reserve currency, any stagnation of capacity increase while users are demanding more will be viewed negatively by the market.

There's also no such thing as "spam".  If you think spam exists, it means minimum transaction fee is not set high enough.  Zero fee transactions should not exist in the first place.