I get you want to defend them but your argument is invalid.Anyone who thinks Meshed is in this for the money should go to the Patreon page and review the vam1 release history. Count the number of times a massive new release has come out that Meshed decided to call a minor release, and not require people to purchase a new key. He does this over and over and over.
If Meshed were truly "milking" the project, updates would have been smaller, more frequent, and always required a new key. Business-wise, that would have been the smart move.
For some people, there is no such thing as "enough money". However much they have, they want more. Then there are people who just need enough to support their chosen lifestyle, and really aren't motivated by money beyond that. I'm pretty sure Meshed is one of the second type. He certainly could have wrung a hell of a lot more money out of this project than he chose to do. IMO, that buys him a certain amount of credibility now.
Even if no new key is required, which has often been required despite not being massive updates lately and in the past contrary to your claim, there are still a huge number of people paying monthly even when absolutely zero updates come out. Currying occasional favor to avoid disruptive backlash with some updates once in a blue moon when most require keys isn't rocket science. More frequent updates wont help a monthly revenue retaining its core patron count even without updates get more money, but rather would just demand more effort on Mesh's part for statistically zero gain. I'm not trying to hate on the guy as I've made clear in my prior point but you got your facts wrong here with regards to monetization and work life balance projections.
You do not have a compelling argument here. This is why you attempt to argue this point and none of the points I raised about VAM 2.x' development issues I presented.
Your final paragraph has nothing to do with my post really. I've already talked about the benefits of the approach Mesh has taken and why I don't blame them for that approach, but also why it is problematic for the project as well. If you want to speak of anyone's credibility, yours, mine, or Mesh's you probably shouldn't use an argument and phrasing that tries to essentially claim I've said otherwise when I very clearly have not and I'm very clearly talking from an extremely neutral stance presenting both perspectives. Mesh has been very clear about the expected slow development timeline and roadmap, too, so once again I'm not hating and only providing clarification of the two different perspectives, the pros/cons of both stances, and also fairly pointing out that while I personally understand Mesh's approach it severely cripples development because of that "approach" and not because "necessity".