Here is the first part I edited, I underlined the parts that I changed. This is all just a suggestion, if you do not want to incorporate any of my changes that is fine.
Whether these corporate developers are intentionally acting against the long term success of Bitcoin is irrelevant. In cases of potential conflict of interest, the ethical and socially accepted behavior should be to recuse oneself from such a position of influence. Instead these developers insist on a poorly defined consensus for determining the development of a MIT licensed code base which they did not initially create. This tactic has had the opposite effect of recusal, giving themselves veto power over any changes. This has stalled improvements on the block size issue in the Bitcoin Core variant.
Bitcoin Unlimited perceives itself as an important element in the Bitcoin ecosystem. We believe our founding statutes are firmly based on the Satoshi's original vision. However, we acknowledge that Bitcoin is fundamentally a decentralized system and thus we will not assert centralized ownership of the protocol. Bitcoin unlimited aims at helping people assert and express their own freedom of choice.
"the
ethical and socially accepted behavior
should be to recuse oneself from
such a position of
influence." as was suggested this sentence has been toned down somewhat, I use the term ethical instead of moral because of the philosophical implication. Ethics should always be based on reason, whereas morals can be based on other things. hopefully this make it come across less "moralistic". I replaced "is" with "should" this is philosophically and realistically more accurate and also helps to further soften this statement. I added "such" just because it roles nicely in terms of the rhythm of the language. I also replaced the word determination with influence, since it is indeed a better way to describe what I think is the intention of what we are trying to express.
I also removed the word all in "stalled improvements on the block size" since you might be able to argue that some minor improvements have been made paving the way for an increased blocksize, playing devils advocate here but it is good to be as accurate as possible.
In my own writing I refer to the blocksize as a single word like this. its a funny thing, we are creating new words in this space, like blockchain, we stuck these two words together and they become one with new meaning, a new concept. It does not matter much either way how we express the word block size since its effect in terms of meaning does not change much, something to consider at least.
"Bitcoin unlimited aims at helping people assert and express their own freedom of choice." Finally I did add this sentence, not sure if you would like to include this or not, I thought it expresses the intention well and it follows logically after the previous statement, though I would understand that you might not want to include this, such a document should be made as simplistic as possible, I always thought that good philosophy is simple, sometimes it is indeed not worth complicating things more then they need to be.
