There seems to be some idea that Bitcoin Cash can only succeed if all its dev groups or even businesses that support the currency, work together or agree.

I'd like to put forward the idea that this should not be required for it to succeed.

Bitcoin, and Bitcoin Cash, is already backed by diverse interests which sometimes conflict with each other.

Asking everyone to be on the same page all the time is unnecessary and even counterproductive.

We need people to BUILD what they think will help Bitcoin Cash, and to get this done, we need to ACCEPT that others will be opposed to our suggestions and pursue different directions.

Either the market is able to look at the fundamentals of these different proposals, and sort out what works from what doesn't (and I believe that to be the case). Or it doesn't, in which case I would say Bitcoin Cash would fail, and so would every other human endeavor. However, I'm of the opinion that failure is not rewarded, and leads to an extinction of ideas that aren't as good as others.

At some point, we also have to let go of names if they conflict with what we think is important.

When Bitcoin (BTC) was being transmuted into a settlement layer additional payment designs, we said ok, we'll just make sure what we want survives, even if we have to call it 'Bitcoin Cash'.

Creating what you think the market needs has more value than arguing and even sticking to brands. Brands can destroy themselves.

I'm not saying Bitcoin Cash has a problem. Just that we should see disagreement as part of the creative process, and don't mistake every instance of it for some kind of "attack".

Let's stay on track and keep Bitcoin permissionless, fight censorship and bring it to as many people as possible. I'm still as convinced that it's a recipe for success as when I first read the whitepaper.