I am very sensitive to pro-ossification arguments as the only way to protect against state compromise, which lends itself to: every week will be a slow news week and hence all "news" will be stupid. however I'm also pretty critical of the way core organization has faltered and some pretty obvious innovations could have been accelerated (especially if you also want eventual ossification) so I guess "not focusing on those things and getting them done" is part of the answer too.

at a higher level though, I've honestly always disliked the idea of a Bitcoin-specific "storyline" as such in any realm other than what is becoming newly technically possible. a soft fork, or discovering/inventing Ark, or René's work on Lightning are all different flavours of what is truly valuable (basically the kind of stuff that gets discussed at a btc++ and hardly anywhere else). beyond that, "X company now holds bitcoin" doesn't interest me at all. it just should happen. it shouldn't be "news".

thank you very much for the praise for the essay, I'm glad you liked it. you'll notice however we don't use the word "bitcoin" even once. that's kind of how I feel bitcoin content should be: either technical and progressive and, by whatever means, creating new knowledge, or just about some broader topic that relates to bitcoin intellectually but isn't breathless "news".