Hi, thank you for the reasonable question. It's not offensive and we understand the concern.

One of the reasons we're not confident that a team page will add significant value to the project is because the reputation of members on it can only be at risk if there's a reputation to begin with. The members of our team are not publicly-known figures, so there isn't any guarantee that anything legitimate is actually being offered.

For the sake of the argument, imagine that our team page had members listed, with full names and images, maybe even links to Twitter or other profiles. Does this really provide anyone a better guarantee, or is just an attempt to appear more legitimate, without actually risking any reputation?
The information could be incorrect, the images could be copied from others or faked (which many ICOs have done, stolen images, names, biographies of individuals and used them for their team page without the affected person knowing their reputation was being staked without their consent). Even if the figures are publicly known, it can have very little effect. Those interested in legal discourse can easily be disappointed when all team members reside in countries where action cannot easily (or at all) be taken against them.

It's my personal opinion that some of the ICOs with the most 'impressive team' pages right now are some of the worst to invest in. I'm not talking about ones with technically competent members, but ones that try to include famous names or 'cool' figures at any cost, becuase they prioritize on convincing people to invest in them due to their implied association, instead of trying to actually provide an innovative idea or concept. Due dilligience is important as an investor in any project, so if you don't like the feel of one project, it might be best to find others that you believe in instead. Thanks for the question.