I find redenominations very shady, specially when done only a year after launch. Means the devs are either incompetent to do a redenomination so soon after launch,
or they just wanted the marketcap and rank increase for free marketing. Either way it is bad practise.
Bruh, Polkadot devs has nothing to do with DOT redenomination as Polkadot uses a sophisticated
governance mechanism that allows it to evolve gracefully over time at the ultimate behest of its assembled stakeholders. With that being said, the redenomination is made by the token holders through votation and not by devs' decision which is something that some high profile cryptos are lacking -
governance.
You can read the
outcome of the DOT redenomination as it shows the split of 100x of DOT's original total supply. With this result, i don't see any "shady" or "bad practise" as oppose to what you are saying, IMHO.