Two factors I think. First I realized that my objections were largely based on emotion and then once I set the indignation aside and took a closer look, I saw that Ripple is on a solid technical foundation.

What really sold me on accepting the enrichment of OpenCoin is when I looked at all of the drawbacks that Bitcoin has because there is no for-profit company developing the code. I want OpenCoin to be profitable and keep paying all those C++ programmers, JavaScript programmers, testers, and CEO. I definitely want OpenCoin to grow to many times its size. If they have a large cash flow they can buy up more small companies and send them out on-site to help banks and businesses integrate Ripple. They could put more resources into polishing up a "Ripple SDK" and "Guide for Ripple Integrators". Maybe they could offer free training classes to help companies learn Ripple. Almost none of this is possible with the Bitcoin financing model.

The Bitcoin software has no direct financial link to the appreciation of the Bitcoin price and for that reason we see odd conflicts of interest. Like...there is no "1.0" version of Bitcoin. Still after 4 years there is no official pruning (did that get solved yet?) The interface is clunky and features that people want, the developers refuse to add. There's no official specification. My opinion this is because the developers are not accountable to a corporate entity. They work on what they want, sent their own goals. There's no shipping deadlines, no milestones, etc... in short there's no financial pressure.

Don't mistake this as a criticism of the skills or commitment of the Bitcoin developers - they are doing a great job given the circumstances. But OpenCoin has a better financial structure. There are financial incentives to get Ripple right, and get it done fast.