True cohesion in this protocol is not loyalty to a brand, a non-profit, or a set of personalities. It is agreement on the fixed consensus rules and openness at every other layer. Competing node implementations, independent application builders, and transparent governance do not weaken that agreement; they test and reinforce it. When those are treated as conflicts of interest rather than as the natural consequence of a permissionless system, the community is divided not by outsiders quoting strategy, but by the incentive structure that rewards alignment over resilience. I was removed for building competing node software the Association had previously treated as complementary. That episode, and the broader pattern of concentrated control across development, mining, media, and association governance, showed how internal incentives can produce the same force-separation Machiavelli described. External rebrand campaigns or ticker proposals are secondary. The primary risk is a structure that suppresses alternatives in the name of coordination, thereby recreating the single points of control the original design was meant to eliminate. Regulators already know how to identify and act on that concentration. Once it hardens, external pressure becomes easier, not harder. The technology continues to function. The question that remains is whether the control structures around it will allow the original design, stable rules, unbounded scale, no trusted parties to survive contact with regulation and commercial reality, or whether the need to maintain concentrated authority will keep producing the internal separations that external actors can then exploit. Branding debates are the surface. The structure of permission and exclusion is the substance.