Maybe I misread the tone of GP but I interpreted it as a sarcastic defense of crypto (“ethically repulsed by the crimes of crypto” being the hyperbole here that mocks the repulsed (similar to how “in his infinite wisdom” is a sarcastic criticism)) which basically argues that the crypto critics need to put their money where their mouth is and “make up” for the lost crypto donations if they are so insistent Mozilla doesn’t accept them. But this doesn’t make sense if the crypto donations are small.
I meant that critics will give twice as much as they first intended before they were prevented by this apalling breach of Ethics. Technically correct because that's almost certainly zero. It's never a smart move to cave in to twitter mobs.
