Not great phraseology there. It is a bit selective and does not represent anything MaidSafe have aspired to.
In that thread, we actually did not endorse that project and asked them to remove logos and the like that hinted at endorsement. You can use a looser term like support to exaggerate a position if you wish, in fact, you do choose to do that, which is unfortunate.
I will support people where possible and that will mean engaging at length with them. That engagement is at a cost, but occasionally, as in that thread, it can extract much more info from a project to validate it or otherwise. I do not think that there was any doubt of our position there, yes we knew some folk, said so and said we trusted them. This is fine though and it is the openness you say you wish. The more open we are then the more you will see “mistakes” as relationships develop or otherwise so that open approach comes at a cost. Perhaps the biggest cost is leaving us open to be accused of many things that are “proven” by out of context messages and specifically chosen phraseology to cement that false message.
I do not mind criticism, but blind criticism that is made by people who take a high ground, with no proof of any experience is occasionally difficult. We still do it though, it is the price of openness and many folks will abuse that. I feel you have done so here @BIGbtc by asking for openness and then using that to show “mistakes”. The other option is for us to say nothing until we have a ton of proof, that would mean allocating resources to getting that proof and not on launch. It also means the opposite of openness, so you cannot play 2 sides of the game as you are asking us to do. We choose openness, if folks “get it” then cool, if they use it to throw cheap shots, then that is also up to them.
Lots of people stand in the shadows shouting at people to show their faces so they can be abused, it is not always clever. In terms of exchanges though I do think it is important to be unmasked and especially so if they use KYC etc.