The part where I suspected many of the bid bot owner witnesses resisting the EIP is speculative as I have no access to the witness channel. I am not referring to the point in time after the proposal got Inc support recently as I suspect most would capitulate by then anyway, and that was the only point after which I saw support from him. 10ish months early when I raised the EIP as a package, I only remember butting heads with you and timcliff over the numbers (regrettably in hindsight, as you guys were one of the very few at that time open to actual economic reform). The only top 20 who supported it then was cervantes. When I first mentioned it 6 months prior to that (details were far less fleshed out then of course) it ended quickly when ned dismissing it, you may recall him likening n^1.3 to n^2.
The last thing I care about is credit. As you said, many had arrived to the measures within the EIP long before I even knew about Steem. From the outside it's very suspect to see that a relatively obvious set of reforms (didn't have to be this exact set, but any sensible set) would take this long. Sure there are many practical reasons, but it feels rational to suspect that impediment from the group with the most to lose from a broadly fair economy made moves against it over all this time may have been one of them. Perhaps you're right and that the group who had the most to lose were its staunchest supporters all along. I'd be slightly surprised but it's certainly possible.
You have no idea how tedious and precarious it was to try to get these changes through knowing full well that a group of bid bot owners in the top 20 had sufficient numbers to veto the motion. Perhaps the combination of asymmetry of information with me being outside of the witness group and pent up frustration over the past 20 months contributed to my overly accusatory tone.
Neverthesless, his support for economic reform aside, it was only a minor part of my comment and the rest of my points stand.