I think that's a great attitude but I have not been quick to throw your initiative under the bus. I have had an interesting journey trying to make my place here or more specifically on Steem so maybe I'm jaded from that experience but I too am willing to reevaluate based on new information. I wished to be a developer and had built a project that my friend was willing to help finance. He was unfairly targeted and now has no interest in the platform at all and wishes me to release my IP on blurt instead. I was getting prepared to launch on March 14 2020 and still remember the Valentine's day that changed everything for me. I have been back and forth on launching on Hive but would love to see my project flourish here. However I am not willing to let my project be subverted. I am involved on multiple chains and hold positions on advisory panels and I have asked many experienced people in the industry and most of them have concluded that this is a toxic and unfriendly ground to plant a gem like I have. I feel similarly and theres no amount of aggregate consensus from the cliques from here will ever invalidate these feelings. Call it failed emotional appeal if you want. I think this is induced by your group, using unethical means to stifle and dismiss people and then using DARVO tactics when they're understandably irate. I think a lot of the forces that oppose this institution are likely guilty of wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater but I think the same can be said of your initiative.

The problem that we have here is a Motte-Bailey fallacy. I think there should be nuanced solutions and the defensible positions are not the ones most would be challenging but these initiatives could be used as unfair attack vectors and its entirely possible the initiative does more harm than good. What I see is people being attacked for trying to do honest audits and if your group is not willing to be scrutinized, it makes it hard to believe you are doing the right thing overall. I would like to offer a little good faith and recognize the sometimes hyperbolic nature of some of the dissent so I can also understand the resistance to that but if you aren't willing to be audited like that, the onus is on your group to offer an alternative middle ground instead of the complete dismissal of criticism.