I don't want to argue in vain and trigger feelings with this post, I just want to talk logically and rationnally about an interesting subject.
Regarding BSV, what you skectch as a scenario (Metanet ending in a centrally controled) is only an hypothesis, a speculation, a possibility. No one will know for sure until this has been tried.
Maybe this will end up centrally controled, maybe not. I suggest you framing that as an experiment. The same way Bitcoin was framed as an experiment until 2014. Let's look at what's going to happen, and I am personally grateful that some people carry out this project.
Regarding CSW, who cares? This a protocol, it's only the code that matter.
Do you remember the early days of Bitcoin when people said that knowing the personality of Satoshi was irrelevant to the Bitcoin project? The same goes for BSV. This is a protocol, which such be judged as such. Rationally, gossips about personalities should be irrelevant.
The difference is trusting an egotistical narcissist, who will do anything in the world to prove he's Satoshi, to make rational decisions. The real Satoshi was a pseudonym basically to protect himself and the BTC project. The purpose of open sourced projects like these is to trust the code only, sure... but what happens when the dude who has been pushing for this all the sudden sees another problem after more people get interested in BSV and start wanting to take it in a different direction than what he has decided on? BSVclassic is what happens.
Well if CSW pushes for changes that doesn't conform with his previously stated goals (ie. an ossified protocol around a version as close as possible than the v0.1 of the Bitcoin protocol) then yes you are correct, a fork will ensue. But why would this be bad?
Forks are mechanisms that allow to keep alive a valuable alternative path despite a social take over of a protocol network. Because of the possibility, if needed, to forking away from CSW, people don't have to trust him. CSW can do whatever he wants, enough people are sold on the idea of ossifying the protocol, to make it happens.
Alike for Monero. We can never be sure a protocol change that degrades the privacy won't be push by the devs inside the protocol. But we can be pretty sure if this happens there would be a fork.
We don't have to trust the developpers, we only need to know that the possibility to fork away from misguided developpers will exist in the future.
