I mean they don't add new people to the core, decision-making team (relevant to this controversy: those who decide the block size i.e. transaction limit).
Now, many open source projects don't add new people to the core, decision-making team, but few open source projects are run by people who are acting in direct opposition to the [financial] interests of their userbase.
Sure, but they aren't being paid by their users so why should they follow their interests? Ideally the users should be paying for development they control but that of course would never happen because of the Tragedy of the Commons and such.
They should follow the user's interest because if they don't users will just leave Bitcoin for another cryptocurrency. Who wants to use a crypto that has 0.50$ fees, and takes hours to confirm a transaction?
Now, many open source projects don't add new people to the core, decision-making team, but few open source projects are run by people who are acting in direct opposition to the [financial] interests of their userbase.