One hallmark of a strong leader is the willingness to reevaluate decisions given new information, and keep ego out of the equation. Several people here have made well-reasoned arguments for a cap, and against the idea that an unbounded crowd sale is "good for the community". I think most people would appreciate hearing a reasoned rebuttal, addressing the new points.

Otherwise, given the sale hasn't occurred yet, and modifying a line of the contract for a cap should be simple -- the head-in-the-sand response of "we've already decided" -- appears to be an emotional response. Indications of emotion-based decision making will not bode well for the project.

 
That doesn't change the argument, only the time frame. For that argument to be true, only a few people would have the idea to jump in at the last minute, making only a nominal impact on the total amount raised. The problem is that an unbounded raise will lead a significant number the total investors to adopt this "last minute" strategy. In this situation the cap could jump by $20M in the last 10 seconds. People hit refresh to find out the value of their investment went down by half. Again, if the concern is truly for the community, then the team would not allow its most vulnerable members -- those with little to no investing experience, and without the ability to have their investments tied up for two years, until the market recovers -- to be placed at risk.