Liquid is not KYC. The KYC is from the initial purchase of bitcoin. You can buy non-KYC and use it with Liquid, but there are no real benefits over just having non-KYC Bitcoin. With a drivechain, you could enter a coinjoin with KYC and peg into Bit-RingSignature. There is absolutely no public knowledge of what happens after that, and then you peg out on L1 directly from the miners for non-KYC Bitcoin. Drivechains are not a popularity contest because nobody is forced into or out of anything. If I want to use a zcash sidechain and you do not, then both individuals win. If I vote with my node to keep you away from drivechains, would that not be a democratic mindset? There seems to be a huge push by the corporations to reject drivechains, even at the cost of splitting the chain. Funny that this happens soon after BlackRock is involved, and they already claim they may not choose the "real Bitcoin" in a chain split. The only way to use a node to reject a MASF is to hard fork off of the longest timechain. So I have to ask myself. Is hard forking to the safe and legal chain with BlackRock better, or keeping the real Bitcoin and making it P2P cash with a little shitcoinery?

NO, there seems to be a huge propaganda push for adding drivechains. It's ridiculous. They've been around as a BS idea for a long time & they are being pushed like crazy all of the sudden lately. Paul is completely dishonest in his presentation of the costs & benefits & he comes off skeezy as fuck both in talks & in person. The default is always NO CHANGE. People defending the default are not the fucking propagandists or conspirators. Anyone presenting things otherwise is an enemy of Bitcoin. There is no miner revenue emergency, there is no lack of viable scaling solutions, those are bullshit arguments from people spreading FUD.