...If they used some more open and transparent approach - like revealing their plans, whitepapers, source code etc. to the community - the community at least has a chance to say: "Look, this is not gonna work, you really should change it".
in general open development is good, esp. on security related or anon related features. This is the main principal of Linux and FOSS: that more eyes on a source code is generally a good thing and helps to find / fix bugs.
However, in this case the majority of eyes would be those looking to steal from the project rather than critical review or otherwise contribute meaningfully.
After MF releases the anon, we'll see, maybe then the code will be released.
Ok, here is the suggestion. Before pumpers claim that the anonymity actually works, the devs and pumpers could:
a) set up a test blockchain,
b) release the source code that works in the test blockchain,
c) and make some wild claims about working anonymity only after this anonymity solution receives critical review from independent experts. Independent = not affiliated to this coin, not being paid by devs/pumpers/bagholders etc.