It's really interesting to see your perspective on RFI as an insider, especially for me being very much an outsider. I know it's not easy to be critical of something you've put a lot of time helping to build, especially when other people will frequently do the job of criticizing it for you lol.
One of the biggest things I would dare to disagree with is the idea that mergers are bad, or that RFI is somehow preventing people from leading alliances. I think both of these can be easily shown to be a symptom of the lack of an active player base left in the game, and in fact are the only things keeping the game from really imploding. Running any alliance is hard, and running one with several dozen+ to a hundred members takes a lot of time and patience, which is a luxury that very few people have, much less are willing to give to this game of all things. It is in fact extremely easy to be allowed to lead almost any alliance except maybe the top 5 or 10ish; most alliances are just kind of existing, and if you fit in with the community (this is actually very important but not so much for the point I'm making), most people are more than happy to hand the reigns to someone willing to actually do the work of running things these days. To that end, I think folks like you, Canik, Lowsten, and others who have been dedicated to keeping their communities alive and well for several years is actually a good thing and even admirable. These people are providing a home that isn't crumbling for those who still feel sentimentally attached to this game but don't have time to do much except log in and chat with friends, which is more than I think 95% of the player base can say.
The same train of thought goes for mergers: being able to have a strong community that others will help manage is extremely desirable for most people these days. The political world isn't becoming stagnant because alliances are merging, but because the game is dying and simply can't support dozens of alliances worth of people who actually want to spend time managing trade circles and tech programs and recruiting messages and discord servers and...all the other things that a functioning alliance needs to manage. Mergers these days give communities the opportunity to stay alive while having those things managed for it, which prevents the game from collapsing.
All this isn't to say you're wrong that these political dynasties aren't preventing global politics from being more dynamic. I agree that someone who has led the same alliance for over half a decade is going to have much more rigid opinions about politics than a newer leader, and having an entire bloc full of alliances set up this way is going to struggle to shake things up very often. I really liked your other points too, especially the last one that RFI is sort of a victim of its own success in not having any way to prove that it's actually a successful bloc because of the way it's managed political relationships. I would just posit that, unlike your evaluation of Oculus, there maybe wasn't enough credit given to the positive or desirable aspects that have led RFI to have the influence it has on the political world.