I'm not 'voting' as I do not fully understand what is going on to cause all the debate and argument.
I started using Icecat as I felt I had a noticeable performance improvement over the over offerings.
Since then it has not updated much and appears to be well behind the Firefox base at least.
Just in general to the recent discussions on "what happens to Icecat next (if anything)"
I like to choose what add-ons I want (or want to 'turn on'). Having them automatically built in does not seem 'correct'.
Indeed, I believe it should be possible to have a performant browser that that is cleaned of all the crud (alleged spying, tracking, questionable code, etc) other versions may introduce and be announced as such and perhaps released with suggestions of approved/recommended addons to improve security/privacy. Users may wish to employ there own solutions knowing they have a great base browser that is doing just what it should and nothing more.
I have read that some people feel that users might not be competent enough to know what to 'add-on' for protection and therefore feel it ought to be built in as such. I do not subscribe to this and believe most people going down the linux route at least (setting it up, installing, configuring etc) will have a reasonable idea of security...especially if recommendations of what people can do comes with it.