I would like to summarize the criticism as far as I have seen it:



1. B instead of S as first letter.

Silkcoin has responded and said it is something that does not really matter and that they did not feel warrants so much attention or concern.
Cryptodevil has said that he worries this means that there are bigger problems that are overlooked.

My take on it:
Silkcoin team have been focused on the bigger picture and ignoring some details (some spelling and grammar in the wallet also) and I can see the B thing slipping in.
I have warned them that the devil is in the details and that people will respond with concern like Cryptodevil did.
I also submitted an edited version of some of the info included in the wallet.
This they implemented in the next update. This acceptance of feedback and response to the community was very much appreciated.

An actual error did appear in one of the earlier wallet updates (having to do with block number causing a crash in wallet) this was immediately responded to and fixed by the team.



2. The White Paper.

Various people have been unhappy with the layout of the white paper and that it did not seem to come from someone used to writing them.
Silkcoin has responded and said that this is in fact true, they are not used to writing documents like these. There was also time pressure and they wanted to deliver the outline of the plan with the ecosystem. An updated version is promised.

My take on it:
This is also in keeping with (1), the dev team is working on the bigger picture and letting things that seem inconsequential slide by. Unfortunately for people who do not understand the technical vision, all they have to go on is the impression of professionalism that is given by fancy websites and flawless papers.
I prefer that they delivered a white paper as promised rather than delayed it to polish it.
I feel it contained the ideas as they said it would.

Nobody has yet really delivered any negative comment on the actual content.



3. Silkcoin wallet is based on Blackcoin.

Silkcoin team have said this is true.

My take:
Who cares? Everything is based on other things. Blackcoin is based on Bitcoin etc etc etc.
If you see how many other wallets are now copying SC wallet and how accepting the devs are of that fact
(and confident that SC will stay ahead because of ongoing innovation),
then you realize that they are happy with open source, using and referencing other wallets and ideas.

Of note: cryptodevil was worried that the B/S substitution happened directly because of this fact in contrast to the response from the dev
Cryptodevil also says he was asked to stop posting negative things in the thread. (Please see the next point.)



4. The FUDstorm

There is convincing evidence that MEGAman/fat mike/gorilla jam posters are part of a group or sockpuppets of an account
that is delivering on a promise to derail the SC thread after failing to extort 0.5 BTC from the dev team.  
The dev team has responded calmly and carried on, which inspires confidence.
The concern is always that trolls manage to derail or anger the dev team enough that they withdraw,
this has happily not happened and in my opinion is why you need a team of dev rather than just one dev.

A new community self moderated thread has risen in response to the extortionFUD but there are problems with that as well.
Unfortunately the side effect of serious trolling is that it galvanizes the community and creates mindless yes-men who want to protect their investment.
This is not always positive and we need to be vigilant to this. Too much hype can kill something as effectively as too much FUD.

My take on it:
SC dev team have managed this as well as possible.
The problem is now that with the extortion, everyone is sensitized to criticism and wonder if negative comments are part of the same team.
Hopefully responses can be tailored to specific criticism (as in the Cryptodevil case) and not all criticism criticized for being critical.



5. The 4.5% premine

Initial premine was planned at 2% but there was lot of early pressure from community to halve the second POW payout and so give earlier investors more incentive.
The payout was halved, so dropping the total number of coins created and hence raising the % of premine.
There has been some in community asking for premine to be destroyed and some strong reactions against this.

The obvious concern with the premine is that devs could desert the initiative and sell off their share and so crash the price.
It is obvious that a lot of work has already gone into creating this coin and that a lot more work is planned.
I for one would hope that devs become rich from this venture but only after enriching the world by delivering innovation and creation.
The addresses containing the premine is public and movement of the funds can be watched.

My take:
I see a need for a dev fund. I don't see fundamental difference between 2% and 4.5%.
I hope the devs also bought or mined lots of SC on top of that fund.



TLDR:

Valid criticism to dev attention to detail but important things have always worked or been fixed immediately.
Some details have not worried the dev team but it does worry some in the community. (Community participation can help to fix details.)
There is ample evidence of dev team competency, just look at the wallet and the fact that others are now copying SC wallet.
There is a vision contained in white paper that could change wallet functionality.


Disclaimer:
I own some SC but not enough that I will be able to retire if it is $10 per SC.
(I plan to keep all of them until I can used them without turning into anything else.)
I am bullish on SC and think that it will increase in price.