If capitulation is set as the aim, the discourse is already tyrannical. Stewardship of a decentralized network demands humility; recognizing that resilience comes precisely from disagreement, heterogeneity of implementation, and persistence of minority views. To frame dissenters as “misinformed fools” and set their eventual surrender as the intended outcome exposes a will to dominate, not to serve. That is maleficence, not stewardship. A true steward would welcome even “inefficient” or “redundant” nodes as expressions of sovereignty, diversity, and the right of each participant to weigh tradeoffs for themselves. If your definition of success requires erasing opposition rather than integrating it into the fabric of the network, you’re not defending decentralization; you’re replacing it with centralization of narrative and authority. In that light, capitulation is not validation of truth but confession of defeat to power.