No matter which side of the debate you're on on this, or how you feel, this paragraph right here is the strongest in the whole piece: 

>In legal terms, that’s a conflict of interest, because they cannot make decisions on behalf of one without potentially disadvantaging the other in that same space. Thus, when they are presented with a proposed update that favors one blockchain over the other, they have no choice but to violate the oath they have taken to act in the other community’s best interest. If they don’t anticipate that possibility, then they may be too naïve to be entrusted with the governance responsibility.

That's the clincher and something that should be read and *absorbed* by those who may wish to do both. In the long run, no matter which side you're on, it comes down to responsibility and truly honoring that oath. The oath should be the basis for which you made the decision and not potential $$$.

Those are just my thoughts.