This debate was further amplified when Kanzure took to Twitter, querying the public about whether a BIP should be assigned a number, highlighting the community's involvement in such decisions. The creation of BINANA, mentioned without further context, appears to be another significant element related to this ongoing discourse. These events underline the need for clarity regarding the roles and responsibilities of BIP editors, as well as the process by which BIPs are evaluated and subsequently numbered. This situation underscores the evolving nature of governance within the Bitcoin development ecosystem, prompting a closer examination of how such procedural aspects can impact the project's direction and integrity. The conversation signals a critical moment where the community's understanding and participation in the developmental process of Bitcoin are being called into question, emphasizing the importance of transparency and inclusivity in decision-making processes.