I still have no idea what if anything your opinion is based on, but I think your points are valid concerns, if seemingly based on a lack of knowledge (therefore speculative) rather than informed.
In my case, when I said that I was referring NOT to his taking a risk, but him taking an unpopular decision for the right reasons: that he regards as reducing risk considerably (that is my reading and expectation from what he has said - evaluated based on my own experience and investigations).
I haven’t verified everything because what David has said stacks up based on my experience, as well as having learned he is IMO competent and of high integrity. Based on my experience and understanding of the issues here, the investigation I have done has only tended to confirm all this. So for me, less worries rather than more, though still eager and impatient to see us reach testnet3 like everyone who supports or is invested!
FYI I’m learning a bit about Rust rather than refreshing my rather out of date (though very extensive) experience of C++ (I’ve probably written several hundred thousand lines of production code in C++ alone). What I’m finding is that Rust is easy for anyone who has competence in C++, and for me coming back to these languages, I think Rust is easier than returning to and learning about the developments in C++ since I last did serious coding. Think about that. Plus Rust has seamlessly integrated documentation, testing, and testing of examples included into the documentation, as well as other features David has described but which I’ve yet to try myself. It is a tour de force, and I think this move will prove to have been a real beauty.
So far I haven’t heard criticism from anyone who claims even hobby level competence of software development, only from people who are rightly concerned, but who don’t seem to be able to assess the information presented or willing to do their own investigation before commenting.