To be honest, I think the muted response speaks for itself. This stuff turns out to be less important than I thought. Someone will eventually re-implement the same things from the paper (maybe Blockstream or Monero guys?). Multiple independent implementations are a good way to do crypto, because then they can be compared and tested against each other.
Oh don't feel let down. It's highly technical and many people don't understand it. I'm certainly super excited about it, but balancing a bunch of things right now so I haven't had time to give more feedback than I have so far (thanks for so swiftly integrating that!).
When I first explained the concept behind coinjoin it went nowhere, I had to do substantial work to write a plain explanation and simplify it all down, before people paid any attention at all. When there is an implementation and such you'll see more interest as well.
For whatever it's worth I consider your work important. Between the soundness and efficiency improvements I went from thinking the probability of deployment of CT in bitcoin proper (rather than just in sidechains) was low but non-zero to-- with your scheme-- a view that its even likely eventually. (assuming Bitcoin doesn't get usurped down a privacy unfriendly angle).