I guess that's possible, but it's hard for me to imagine that with billions of dollars at stake they didn't even consider it. I think they made the calculation that forcing their customers and creators to use crypto would lose them even more business than banning their core product.

I just can't fathom such a risk-averse decision. I mean, their business is dead. Even if you're not normally the type of leader to bet the farm on a wild shot, certainly it's the rational choice when the other option is a guaranteed 90% loss in expected valuation.

What are those last 10% worth to you? Unless it's still the difference between personal financial independence and wage slavery for the majority owner, I can't see how that's the rational choice. That's why I'm concluding lack of imagination and borderline incompetency.