There is definitely development in BTC,
but the problem is that the governance is flawed. Miner centralization has made it impossible to innovate, because innovation threatens the miners' bottom line. On the other side, Blockstream has corporate motivation and also has heavy influence (debatable an authoritarian control) in development. The relationship between these two extremes is troubling. UASF would be a good balance/check, but is far from perfect and doesn't solve the greater governance issue. Lightning network would be a step in the right direction IMO, as it would enable Bitcoin to facilitate fast speeds and low fees for smaller transactions. This alone would help mitigate Bitcoins identity crisis, being "am I digital gold, or digital cash." Until that question is answered, development will be unlikely to move past the present stalemate.
I hope UASF will solve some problems or create good alt for people willing using good coin for future.
The more I read on this topic, the more this post seems to haunt me... Wiser words do not seem near when you think about this dilemma we are now in. The deeper meaning of this lies somewhere to that answer. Historically, humans tended to swing toward the authoritarian control and that pendulum does not return until some catastrophic event.
Technically speaking, we are yet to truly see anything like what it will be like in 5-10 years. Then blockchain will take off but then again..it depends on what direction.