Personal bias is not a factor in his dismissal of the technology. He gave his opinion based on precise and valid technical arguments, which can be evaluated on their own merit.

What is a factor in his unwillingness to do pentesting (if the current testnet even counts as valid pentesting) for VNL is the fact that $2100 is not even close to enough to pay for his time, much less acquiring other resources for an attack.

Increase the bounty a lot and (again assuming the testnet is a valid test) you may have qualified people interested. You should also of course not be paying such a bounty in VNL, as was pointed out earlier on this thread. Otherwise it is little more than cheap trash talk, which only makes the coin look even more like a scam.

People do not understand that the goal here is not to make something it secure against attackers with <$2100 of resources. It is to make something secure against attackers with large to enormous resources, in the case where the coin is highly successful (which is the only case that really matters). At least that should be the goal. If you are instead trying to orchestrate a pump-and-dump (even a relatively slow and elaborate one, where perhaps you feel even if you aren't the ringleader, you can ride his coattails and dump at a profit to a greater fool), then your goals are quite different.