If you don’t change the model cycles code, you won’t get new model:cycles firmware. New firmware doesn’t happen by magic.
You know enough about the software architecture of the two different firmwares to be sure about that ? I certainly don’t know enough to make a definitive statement (my knowledge of that is zero, like nearly everyone here I would expect).
Just read Ess quote on the subject? he is talking about “making” a machine.
M:C already had new firmwares updates in the past.
I did … I see nothing that contradicts what I’ve said
that’s not his quote, his quote is :
Keep in mind that at that time only the m:c had the concept of machines (outside of the older pieces of hardware like the MnM).
This whole thread is like arguing about the deck chairs on the Titanic – as it lies at the bottom of the ocean.
My suppostion:
… and what Ess said …
He is talking about making a machine from scratch, not backporting existing machines.
that’s what he is talking about when he says it “takes a lot of work” :
This process would be different as the prototypes of the syntakt machines are already made and done, the patches are already tested and the feedback is already received. Translating the patches to run on hardware is also already done (since they exist on the syntakt).
The only thing left to do is backporting the said patches onto the m:c.
My preferred metaphor is more like schrodinger’s cat. One day Elektron may release new M:C firmware and on that day we will know if it’s possible.
Until that day, there’s a probability of it happening and a probability of it not happening. Nothing more.
And we will probably never know if it was easy/difficult/time-consuming/a trivial event.
I’ve not been arguing that it must be hard. I’ve been arguing about the claim that it must be easy, we just don’t know that.
I mean, have you? 
I don’t know fuck all about anything, but I know you’re all wrong.
Did you see the word “could” in that sentence you quoted ? That means I was entertaining the possibility it was hard, not arguing it must be hard.
And I gave you a bunch of quotes that indicate that there is no proof that it could be difficult.
Actually if we’re being factual, the fact that the syntakt was able to get the exact same machines (which sound exactly the same) as the m:c on a seemingly different structure shows that the process of porting existing machines to different hardwares is known and mastered.
Considering that m:c machines were ported to the syntakt, why would the reversed operation be difficult? they use the same CPU.
The shared machines use the exact same parameters, the syntakt even sports the “punch” compressor of the m:c, both products are also strictly monophonic.
The only difference is the m:c can do machine lock (which ess hinted at its structure being able to change dynamically) while the syntakt cannot.
It would have been sensible practice for the software architectures of M:C and Syntakt to be similar enough to ease the porting of machines and other features, and this probably has some beneficial effects on any potential attempt to go in the other direction. But just because something is technically possible doesn’t mean it’s going to get done.
I agree.
Exactly, nothing show it would be difficult, and a lot is hinting at it being a process that is known/mastered.
Does not mean its going to be done, I don’t believe they will ever make a big update for the models, they might (or will if you trust their answer) do smaller firmware updates for little things like bugfix/pad sensitivity issues but that is all.
High likely yes. But not certain.
EDIT: I thought I saw earlier that @Ess was replying (and I welcome what ever reduction in uncertainty that might bring) but since that reply hasn’t shown up yet it’s either
Why would they make it harder on themselves to port machines by creating widely different structures on the m:c and the syntakt? This makes 0 sense
I was going to reply something funny but I changed my mind and went to lunch. Sorry for the suspense 
For people not working in software/hardware or other project related work - the most obvious, smart, rational thing to do is not always the thing that gets done or decided on. It’s always fun in retrospect.
I just want to add that in the same way I have bought presets packages for the M:C in the past, I would buy any firmware that could expand this device in interesting ways.
And apparently I am not the only one.