I read it too, not in much detail...there is a lot of info.
@jjg plan is a "mechanical" proposal that works, but i don't think that @philipma1957 (or a theoretical HypoPhil) is following the 1% sale after 10% up.
He might be selling either more or less and mostly looks at it to fund his lifestyle, which is totally fine.
The ORIGINAL proposal by Rpitiela had 10% sell after 100% rise, which is quite different than 1% after 10%.
My feeling that 1% sell after 10% rise is too "granular".
Today's WSJ article actually opines that with the taming of Binance (and assuming ETF comes relatively soon), bitcoin and the rest would swiftly come into the government control, in the author's words :
Binance’s acquiescence to Uncle Sam is indeed a watershed moment for crypto. The company had little choice and would likely have suffered a far worse fate if it had not passed under the yoke. But the remaining true believers have a point too. What does crypto [his term, sorry] have to offer—beyond clunky, wasteful and overly complicated technical systems—if it abandons its aspirations to operate independent of government oversight? The probable answer is: not much.
WSJ is probably mostly wrong, but not entirely, I feel.
Some "soul searching" among participants would be in play in the next 12-18 mo.
With most mining being controlled by corporations and bitcoin flows largely controlled by ETF, who will be in control of btc? Investors in ETF/mining companies?
With that, I still hope that the essence of bitcoin would endure all of this.