"Failing to plan is planning to fail".
I don't see why would corporations and existing tech companies be interested in yet another IM protocol they cannot control, especially in the era of total silos and FAANGs. Doesn't sound like a solid plan to me at all.
I'd be more interested in seeing how they plan on preventing the whole Embrace, Extend, Extinguish thing pretty much every company pulled with their initially XMPP based chat apps that gained market share, turning them into back into closed silos.
The best solutions we have right now are:
* Ensure there's enough value in the wider network (e.g. available services, integrations, bridges, public chatrooms) that you'd be taking a massive step backwards not to federate.
* Try to build the protocol to be capable enough that vendors don't feel that they have to fork and close it in order to make it do what they want.
I think it's mainly the first one that will make the difference. If there hadn't been such great content out there on the public internet, we might still be on AOL & Compuserve today.
Regarding the first point, I'm not sure it will be ever possible to pull this off. The proprietary IM silos are many orders of magnitude larger than IRC, XMPP and Matrix taken together. You are doing a good job with promoting Matrix to nerds, and there will be _some_ value in being able to directly contact the French government (provided that they will allow federation from the public network, which I have a hard time imagining).
I think the only viable route today is to push for legislation (e.g. in the EU, in the context of ePrivacy / GDPR) that will force silo providers to open up their silos and to offer interop by means of standardized protocols. But even in this improbable case they will probably rather create their own rubber-stamped standards (remember Office Open XML) than follow what is already out there.