Think of any large human achievement in history that have benefited from network effect and that during its growth phase were public opened about its flaws.
You can think of some companies we have now but also something totally different, like a religion. Imagine a religion in its early days being openly critical about its history, its rituals, its myths…
I do hate listening to a btc maxi, but in the same way I hate watching a used car seller saying partial truths. Not more or less. They are not devil, but indeed honesty is really low in their priority list, if at all. This is a nuanced strategy because too much of this distortion field can brake the narrative, draining confidence, and ending hit their own foot.
But here is the catch: network effect brings defensibility that grows exponentially as size of adoption grows, which itself gives room to be fixi some flaws that were ignored or denied in the past as strategy to succeed crossing the chasm between early adopters and early makjority.
What is good for my enemy is not necessarily bad for me, or not 100%, or not all the time.
Greedy and idealism might walk side by side as long as there is rational behind their shared tactical objectives. But there is divergence among them and it requires some wisdom to deal with it, protecting what each cherishes most, sure, but avoiding hopelessly trying to deny gravity in terms of the threats they both are exposed while defensibiliy(size of network) is low.
Considering the perpective explained above I do have some respect for the "number go up" strategy because it works as a simples mantra to keep everybody on the same page and that unify different segments of adopters because it focus on their convergences.