Some of these "contributors" who refuse to fix the issue have been found to be connected to Ordinals, making money either directly or indirectly by forcing users to adopt their Layer 2 "solutions."
Can you justify that claim? Which contributors? in what sense are they contributors? How are they making money from it?
If you can't you should withdraw the accusation-- because it's extraordinarily toxic to the public discussion for people to state this sort of thing as fact and not even justify it so that anyone can check it.
In the past I've found comments like this form turn out to be nonsense, like they just point to idle speculation, or to a "contributor" who one time in 2014 submitted a couple documentation fixes and has no particular sway over anything being merged.
It also just fails on its face because many many people who have absolutely no financial ties to anything "crypto" except for the value of their own coins do not support blocking the transactions. And it also fails on its face because in Bitcoin's 16 years of life I'm not aware of the project actively blocking *any* form of transaction that was actively in use[1], so doing so would be a radical departure from past history.
[1] the nearest thing I can think of to an exception was the TX malleability patch requiring LowS signatures, and a big factor in the decision to do that was that it was possible to run modified nodes that converted all blocked transactions to acceptable ones without the user's intervention, and Matt and I did that for a couple years. Otherwise all policy filtering I can think of has always been of transactions that weren't commonly in use or which were already filtered out by other reasons.