The problem is, from the point of view of that conventional security expert (and of me too) the only "usefulness in the field" is the possibility to sell the ex

The problem is, from the point of view of that conventional security expert (and of me too) the only "usefulness in the field" is the possibility to sell the extremely expensive snake oil to the buyers who don't ask what the price is. Because even without the same snake oil, the equivalent system can be designed, maintained and be significantly cheaper. Getting money from those who can give a lot can also be a valid economic goal, or in this case an accepted approach to funding (I quoted that Microsoft researcher) but using "snake oil" can still be seen as the evil opposite of the established principles of honest security engineering, the classic entry for Schneier's "doghouse." The fair approach would be, "we're doing the basic research, no there's no too practical applicability of our research, but it's good to fund it anyway, that's why the research is different from engineering." It would also let engineers do their work and not force them to implement less secure directions "because policy." Which is the effect that certainly appears here and there on the EU level.