A system where no one person or entity is in control is difficult to work in, because we naturally want our side or group to control it.
Bitcoin miners have a lot of skin in the game, probably more skin than any other entity. But they cannot ignore node runners, nor can node runners ignore them.
Just because node runners are not in sole control of Bitcoin does not mean that Bitcoin is bad or has gone off the rails.
In this particular situation with BIP110, not all node runners, nor even a majority, supported the changes, so this argument about node runners not being in control is even less strong than it could be.
Even if miners have more power in the system than is ideal, that does not mean Bitcoin is garbage and we have to fork or start over.
There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe in dogma and know it, and those who believe in dogma and don't know it. (Chesterton)
I have greatly appreciated Kratter and his videos these past years. I'm a big fan. But one can turn something into a religion that is not a religion.
In this case, it's unhelpful to be dogmatic about one's opinion about how powerful node runners should be in Bitcoin. The fact of the matter is that BIP110 failed with the percent of node runner support that it had. It is what it is.
Better to bide one's time, see how one can influence the system over time, make a strategy and slowly build up support for it until the right time to strike comes, rather than abandon it because one specific effort failed.
If the pleb node runners aren't in control, it's not Bitcoin. It's just another industry-run crypto