Bitcoin is neither a democracy nor a meritocracy.
Every "-cracy" has its strength and weakness. It's human. It's bipolar.
Bitcoin is (stupid) software enforcing rules (1 ASIC - 1 VOTE) you are free to (dis-)agree with.
What makes Bitcoin so powerful is its independence from any form of government or "..."-cracy. Like freedom of speech it is freedom of choice!
The bitcoin (price) just reflects the acceptance of a certain group of people who freely agreed to transact value with each other.
I mostly agree with this, but there are some standards and norms which have come forth from both the code and the roots of the cipherpunk movement. This is why I was referring to
development being decided upon mostly by meritocracy and consensus and not bitcoin as a whole. As Bitcoin as a whole the "governance" and control is far more complex and nuanced.
The history of bitcoin and the nature of the code has direct philosophical and political implications regardless of Bitcoin being apolitical.
I.E... Rather than one person, one vote... the economic majority has greater influence on bitcoin balanced by the ability of developers and limitations of the technology. This is opposed to many democratic republics where the economic majority indirectly influences the majorities vote to remain dominant.
It's comforting to see that you don't understand the meaning of what you write, that probably means you won't promote their consequent actions. Maybe.
Please elaborate, specifically.