I'll digress a bit from the main topic of the discussion, in this story I was interested in the following point.

Bitcoin implies decentralization, but aren't the actions of a mining pool that has the ability to influence the course of events in the BTC-network (returning the cost of inflated transaction fees to the sender. of course, considering that it was from "his own pocket".) some manifestation of "centralization"?

I feel sorry to see similar stories, when users mistakenly send large sums of money for fees and I support their desire to return what was lost, this to some extent differs from the idea of ​​BTC-maximalists who reject centralization. Centralization is bad, but also a necessity, isn't it.