oh brother. never mind the fact that by Blockstream changing the source code, all other competing entities like CP, Bitshares, Ethereum, and all altcoins get put at a competitive disadvantage. which is one of the stated objectives to begin with if you are paying attention.
you and several others have already stated in the course of arguments that Blockstream is a way for devs to get paid. and you said they would deserve to make millions off Blockstream as it would somehow bring along value to Bitcoin itself. i don't see it. it's a conflicted model with a false core assumption: that being that BTC units can be separated from its blockchain (MC) and still preserve the Sound Money function.
All the competing entities previously using a different scheme can turn to sidechains and offer the same services that Blockstream do. What's to stop Vitalik and the gang from creating Blockstream2?
if we can see ahead of time a conflict or a flawed assumption, which i certainly do in this case, we as a community should avoid adopting it. it's stupid to say, "lets just let them go ahead and make changes to the source and we'll let everyone scramble to adjust". lot of ppl will get hurt in that scenario.
If it shows to be the more promising technology/implementation, why would they not use their employable skills to build on top of it?
the reason Blockstream went out and employed 40% of core devs and 3 of the top committers to Bitcoin was to eliminate this type of competition from the likes of Vitalik.