Bitcoin Jesus aka Roger was to early adoption what Andreas Antonopolous was to technical and economical understanding, while Nick layed out the philosophical and game theoretical ground work. Without those three Bitcoin would have had taken another trajectory. I do think that all three are to this date consistent and I don't think they are compromised.

I do think Bitcoin serves a purpose in today's world although it could not live up to its promises. In a world where no small blockchain aka BTC exists one would need to invent it for it's unique characteristics. At the same time in a world where BTC exists as it is, MoE can happen horizontally on other chains that sacrifice node decentralisation for on chain UTXOs (instead of IOUs/custodianship) with less security guarantees than BTC. BTC will perform as the backbone, a reserve asset of sorts, with high value onchain capacity and LN, competing with Monero, Zcash, bcash, Litecoin, Nano,.... AND fiat/stablecoins. Anything is better than fiat. Bitcoin maximalism killed adoption on it's chain for (to a degree) valid reasons. It also killed "shitcoins" that could have expanded its role as reserve asset and instead enabled stablecoins. Which is actually the bigger fuck up here.