* Can't speak for them but I would imagine anyone trying to be fair would say more widely geographically distributed ASIC and chip manufacturing would be very nice, I hesitate to say its too much of a "concern". If I could choose, I would surely like to see more, and iirc there is a large plant slated to open in North America in the next few years, remembering an announcement from someone.

Second concern is regulatory capture, specifically around KYC/AML chokepoints and the large corporations investing billions to hold BTC. While I don't fear them changing the actual protocol, I think it's quite obvious they would not readily support any true advancements in say, on-chain tx obfuscation for fear it may hinder their number go up bags. I do think they'll likely try to use their power to prevent outright bans, but whats the use in making it illegal if you can jusy make it so that an identity is tied to every utxo. Fighting for "good" regulation is asinine imo, for _any_ project.

So as far as protocol concerns go, pretty well resolved to the fact we will never get CT or anything on L1, at this point I would be surprised to even see cross input signature aggregation actually make it in, since they removed it from the Schnorr upgrade, essentially neutering the entire thing. L2 has some promise, but until on-chain channel openings can be adequately obfuscated any talk of getting privacy on L2 is just false and likely being done in bad faith.

Other than that, orange coin good. Number go up.