You are projecting what you consider bad to the majority of users.

I did not use any definition of "bad" here. I said that people staying there is not a sign of their superiority wrt federated network. The preexisting large userbase suffices to explain why it keeps being large.

They are not staying there because of "network effect", they are staying because their "few basic functionalities" are satisfied.

Except that the few basic functionalities (posting, commenting, reacting, following) are not what sets them apart from their federated counterparts.

And when they look for alternatives, federated social media will always be inferior to centralised solutions.

You are stating this like a fact, yet you have not explained what the big advantage of centralization is. You actually start from the hypothesis that centralisation is the core thing that everyone wants, even needs.

You have become the same thing you wanted to destroy.

Yes, and that went pretty fast. A few comments ago the majority of users were the developpers themselves, and suddenly they are a crowd whose fate is decided by a restricted elite.

Again, what is your better alternative?