That's because from all we know the technology is currently solid.
The biggest problem is not the technology itself, but just the way in which they conduct themselves.
They:
1. Have a 20% dev tax on block rewards
2. Have a company that can be pressured by regulators
3. have shown they are willing to work with regulators and add transparent addresses for exchanges instead of being delisted
4. Actively dissuade darknet adoption
5. required a trusted setup at Genesis that may have been compromised
Good reasons. Also at the core of it: what kind of 'cypherpunk project' (everyone is a cypherpunk now!) has a CEO and company backing it up? lol.
1) I think it's a reasonable and creative way to fund development.
2) This is analogous to Bitcoin Core, more or less, and there's definitely some potential risk here. There's more opportunity to sneak something into moon math due to the complexity and because very few people have the capability to validate concreteness.
3) Reasonable, but a slightly discouraging precedent. I think the transparent option is kinda cool and can serve as a buffer against regulation (as witnessed by the fact that they're still on several major exchanges). I can see some potential benefits and issues with this approach.
4) Reasonable, but a slightly discouraging precedent (not very cypherpunk)
They're obviously trying to navigate the regulatory landscape and this requires compromises.
However, from my perspective, it's a good thing that there's another project with an alternate design and regulatory strategy.
5) This is FUD in my opinion. The odds are infinitesimal - effectively zero.
They've also had some fuck ups with cryptography and transparency. They're now under new management, so we'll see how that goes.
Ultimately, I still think it's legit (at least for now).
Is it better than Monero? Given all of the above, probably not.
Even if snowden was one of the signers at that ceremony this breaks the fundamental principle of do not trust, verify.
There's no way to verify point five.
