But I guess the obvious point is with your wallet being in such a horrid state and with so many basic issues, and after 1 year none of this was fixed and instead the Devs are going around trying to mask subjective accusations as provable facts that the rest of crypto should agree with your interpretation off, it looks like a scam - again, my subjective opinion.
Luckily, the markets don't agree with your subjectivity. If XMR was a scam the markets would have rejected it, much in the way the markets have rejected all of XMR's 'competitors' - not least Bytecoin.
XMR markets rise and fall, largely due to it's investors telepathically and enharmonically performing a 'mexican wave' with the view to accumulating more; a symptom of a mechanism that people actually believe in.
Consider this: If the XMR wallet is in such a horrid state as you say, then it is surely is reflected in the price and market cap. Any future rectifications will simultaneously rectify the price and market cap accordingly.
It should be noted that there is a big difference in investing in a five star hotel at the architectural level, and investing in an already-built hotel that is demonstrably flawed.
Why did DRK/DSH fail? Maybe it was branding suicide, maybe it was masternode peeking, or maybe people simply woke up about the instamine issue. I don't know. But I do know that honesty and fairness are critical components to any altcoin.
If a coin has shown itself to be born out of insidious intent (and in the case of DSH this certainly pertains to the administration's failure to acknowledge the instamine)
then it surely should be shouted from the all of the rooftops, so vigorously, that everyone knows exactly what they are investing in. I don't believe that is the definition of toxicity. I believe it is the right thing to do.