Well it's not about a statement people are free to go or stay with; it is more about how you listen people's comments.
When it sayed this is an obvious bug, I got astonished. Obviously this coin wasn't well looked after. The suggestion I'd give is how you can show your devotion to plans of development, rather than just marketing plans (don't talk Bittrex or Poloniex anymore pls until get it). Convince people how this coin is going to make improvements, and continue to improve the stability to make sure likability of "obvious" bugs are going to be reduced by orders. High-tech is great, but reliability is the first priority on top of anything else.
I recalled few pages back people were still saying sync issue; I might be wrong that has been years and that can make people think something not right. Just get it done if not.
As pallas said the bug is only obvious when you know what to look for, there is a lot of code and without knowing what to look for it's very hard to pick out bugs, especially when neither of us were the original dev for Cryptonite. I developed the idea for the mini-blockchain several years ago but my C++ skills were lacking at the time so I hired a dev to create Cryptonite. The work was very rushed and he was working alone so there was bound to be some problems in the code, although I'm still quite suspicious of the original dev because it seems like he should have noticed this bug. Obviously it's embarrassing because a bug like this should not have been there in the first place. However we are lucky the attacker didn't do more damage then they did because they easily could have.