The code didn't care about politics, beliefs, nationalities. It excluded accounts actively strengthening a sybil attack/hostile takeover. It does not make any sense to include elements of a hostile takeover in a new chain if the main reason to create the new chain is to get away from the hostile takeover. With the included appeal process, I feel this decision was handled fairly and professionally and was only logical.
Boil it down. Those are facts.
What's more damaging? Saying things like this:
I'm sure we can all think of 10 accounts in a minute that we don't want to share a chain with...
and making it sound like those excluded accounts were hand picked, or simply sticking to basic facts of the matter, applying basic common sense, and moving forward with the appeal process? That list was never meant to interpreted as a final decision and just because so many took it personally, and thought it was about politics or beliefs or nationalities; that doesn't make it so.
significantly harms the likelihood of attracting any further investment and user growth from the demographics
The code didn't care about politics, beliefs, nationalities. Again, what does more damage? The facts or the twisted narrative?