I think it's worth pointing out at least that 1) Sabelnikov was never found guilty of any wrong doing and Microsoft agreed that it was not him who ran the botnet. 2) Even if CZ was part of the original CryptoNote team, there's no indication that he was involved with Bytecoin at all. Not only that, but if he was involved with CryptoNote, the act of creating BBR(with the new PoW) alone by himself would be strong statement that he disagreed with what Bytecoin did and wanted no part in any sort of scam.
All of which is missing the forest for the trees. It's risk and uncertainty which is simply incompatible with the most ambitious goals of a private liquidity instrument. I have nothing against Andrey Sabelnikov. I admit that I do have something against the perpetrators of the bytecoin scheme, but I am in favor of a generous allowance of rehabilitation. The market would not price a currency offered by a known fraudster at the same level as one offered by a supportive network of persons who generally lack this distinction. That means that an adverse identity revelation would impoverish investors. At the same time, a favorable identity revelation would be a boon to investors. As a speculative instrument, that is an opportunity. It's poison for a reserve currency.
Personally, I don't think it's likely CZ is a bad actor. Whoever he is. At worst it appears he could be a famous hacker responsible for writing some code that other people used in a malicious way(the botnet).
I consider the association with the botnet to be far less eggregious than association with the bytecoin pre-mine, personally. That is the more likely of the two adverse identifications which have been hypothesized.
So there is some risk with an anonymous developer, that is a constant.
As a technical experiment, that's fine. For timing speculation, okay. In the competition for the natural monopoly of private liquidity, 0.00001% more risk on one side than on the other pre-determines the outcome.