Some of that is true I believe, but I think that's often how we grow and build new things even if we don't agree on everything. Trust me there is plenty I don't agree about, but I'm still here and still building. I think it's a bit of a misnomer that we all have to get along for success to occur. Bitcoin protocol is still highly successful despite it being mostly anarchistic, and we have a much larger scope. >in the worst of cases, completely closed off to user feedback. That is a universal software development problem unfortunately, very often (outside of nostr) these people can even be heavily funded or even building highly successful tools we use today. If you look at my notes, I regularly harp on inability to accept user feedback and criticism. To be fair some of the largest development firms (Apple, Microsoft etc) they aren't really open to feedback. Some individual products have corralled feedback mechanisms but it's highly confined to their vision. Point is, it's often too difficult to send feedback so most users don't. Not saying it's morally right or wrong, but this issue is prolific and generally accepted, only in open source are developers highly exposed to their customers directly. Most developers (including product staff, making design decisions), are paid ones, working in corporate settings shielded completely from their users, on purpose. It's just a different world and we have to learn how to work in it.