We appreciate this sentiment and don’t intend to push back criticism simply for being critical. This response is intended to deconstruct the arguments made specifically. In this case, we also lament the original tone which is hostile and assumptive, the lack of dialogue between the teams which could have yielded much more constructive debate and creative solution finding, and the shallowness of some of the claims which demonstrate a misunderstanding of the protocol’s mechanism (or worse.)
We hope the detailed response is anything but “crying FUD” and rather a clear demonstration of a willingness to engage on all issues, real or perceived, despite their often unpleasant delivery. We also appreciate that you may not see it this way, but that was our intention. Thanks for sharing your thoughts as well.