It requires vetting because first the model is unique and interesting and could benefit from brilliant minds iterating and refining. You get this for free after the bootstrap. Second, the system is experimental and thus cannot be safely used by legacy systems and actors sensitive to risk.
The more peer review the model gets, the more adoption and respect your system gets. Notice how the bitcoin core developers grudgingly accept ethereum's contributions? The entire valley is rushing to have a smart contract solution? But they do not acknowledge that bitshares has a value stable currency? They never discuss DPoS. This isn't a conspiracy it's a lack of respect for the project because the rules keep changing and the technology never is properly explained or vetted. You can ignore this or say I'm wrong but it doesn't change the reality of the matter.
It.. does ?
Yes notice the only PhD on the project left? Dr. Charles Evans
I totally agree! But this academic game is, besides the real and free value it brings, a social game. Science often is a way to make something socially acceptable.
But you are totally right, much could be done here. On the other side it's a trade of between fast iteration and keeping the social proof up. I would claim that Ethereum did many things right in the latter category but is left behind technology wise compared to Bitshares ALTHOUGH someone that operates within the constraints of social proof can't admid it