I don't know why they should not continue. Surely the benefits far outweigh any downside.
BitShares, like all other Blockchain offerings, will succeed or fail relative to its utility; developers; community. Those are not distinct from one another. The community takes confidence from the competence of the developers. That raw talent, is not something that can be communicated through intermediaries; any PR dulls the message.
If you are going to attract new talent and real savvy investors, who in turn will amplify the message, then you need to provide sight of what they are signing up to. If you only provide sight of the community and utility, allowing vague allusions and speculation on reality, rather than giving sight of the nuanced way that the devs are thinking, then you substantially weaken the attraction.
BitShares at its root should be about what makes Blockchain technology's potential - devolved power driven by real talent. Without open discussion about what is best, users are not encouraged to think about what is best and why they are committed to BitShares over an alternate that does hide its developers behind good PR.
If the users are truely in control and if BitShares is to be distributed, then you need to respect those users and provide them clear sight of the state of play; both so that they can understand and learn from that and so they might contribute.