The argument you're making now is a very different one from the one you were making in your original post. In your original post you call attention to his nickn

The argument you're making now is a very different one from the one you were making in your original post. In your original post you call attention to his nickname (which is totally unrelated to competence, a lot of competent people have weird nicknames and a lot of incompetent people don't have any) and his one-line self-description which only tells us that he working on some weird stuff written in PHP. This is all of the argument that you made - you attacked his person and character, not anything he said or any of his qualities related to the incident. To sum up your post in a quip "Oh, look, PHP programmer at work, LOL, what did you expect?" Now you're making a different and more nuanced argument which boils down to "why should we trust him, even if he's competent." That's a reasonable question to ask - but the question of trust is a fundamentally different question from the question of competence. I might trust someone incompetent to be well-meaning and someone competent and capable might be completely untrustworthy. It might even be true that he's incapable and untrustworthy, but still - that's not the argument you made. The fundamental problem with the older bitcoin exchanges is that they all started out when nobody in the financial world even cared about bitcoin: No technical knowledge, no investors, ... so basically trust had to be earned from 0 on. One point speaking for Mt.Gox is that they are still in business while other exchanges folded. Somebody seems to trust them.