Understood, and thanks for updating the blog post. The discussion in the comments was interesting, and I'd like to clarify a few points. From my side, there never were any doubts about licensing compliance. I picked MIT precisely so that folks can use the implementation without further obligations, I wanted the implementation to be as useful as possible. What startled me was the combination of a for-profit company writing a blog post about a new feature (that will likely further increase profit in the future), using my implementation as the core of the feature (and therefore likely save a bunch of money) and not giving any credit to either the IETF batched tokens draft or the implementation. Anyway, the blog post has been amended now – thanks for that. Case closed.

PS: If you want to go above and beyond, you can spell my last name right in the blog post – it's Robert, not Roberts.