I ended up discussing in tonyk's style, which I find horrible and manipulative.
I regret this and I am sorry for letting myself be trapped in this.
These are my final thoughts on this subject.
1. There are three parties involved: Bitsapphire, IOU investors and BitShares shareholders.
2. The fundraising deal is only between Bitsapphire and IOU investors. If Bitsapphire fails to deliver, IOU investors will lose their money, but BitShares shareholders (or BTS funds as tonyk calls them) will not be negatively affected.
3. The outcome for BitShares shareholders can only be neutral or positive. BitShares shareholders are the ultimate judges who have the power to employ Bitsapphire and fire it whenever they choose to do so. It is true Bitsapphire's salary will be paid from BTS funds but this is trivial as it is the case with every other delegate we have. But the important distinction is that Bitsapphire will not be using BTS funds but will be paid from these funds only for services they deliver.
4. The BitShares shareholders should only care whether the Moonstone wallet has the potential to increase the adoption of BitShares or not. They should not care who else is using the wallet and whether some other third party using the wallet contributes to the wallet development or not. Also, they should not care whether Bitsapphire makes a profit on the fundraising or not. This is not our business.
However, if I am both a BitShares shareholder and an IOU investor a conflict of interest can occur. As a BitShares shareholder I might want to fire Bitsapphire but as an IOU investor I might want to keep them so they are able to repay me. This is a valid concern but it originates not from Bitsapphire's offer being "convoluted" but from the way our delegate and UIA systems work.
I am quite sure similar cases of delegates offering their IOUs will be happening in the future and we will need to find a way how to manage our loyalty is such situations. But again, this has nothing to do with Bitsapphire, they just happen to be the first entity to expose the existence of this loophole but this problem is on our side not on theirs.