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.
When you put it in that context, doesn't the increasing uncertainty surrounding the code base and recent events pretty much disqualify both BBR and XMR from holding that title? At what point will you and other stakeholders decide your money is better spent recreating the technology from scratch?
I have (no?) idea what if anything BBR has to do with the bytecoin scheme.
I would put it more strongly: Event though it seems probable that CZ involved in cryptonote development, and hence in bytecoin development, there is nothing to link him directly with the pre-mine scam. If CZ was involved early in development but not in the fraud, almost certainly he was at least aware of it, so perhaps the distinction is too fine. If he was involved late, he could have been aware of it, but have no culpability in it. The closeness of the association, however, still would damage the risk profile of BBR in the market's view.
Scenarios in order of increasing investor risk:
1) CZ had nothing to do with BCN, and is not AS.
2) CZ is AS but had nothing to do with BCN.
3) CZ was involved in BCN, but after the pre-mine.
4) CZ was involved in the fraud, but is reformed.
5) CZ was involved in the fraud, and plans to exploit the next suitable opportunity to take money from more honest people.
In the best of these scenarios, BBR still suffers from the risks inherent in centralization of governance. It just gets worse from there on.
That sounds reasonable. My guess is that he wanted nothing to do with BCN and thus went out on his own. As time goes on, if BBR continues to grow I think it's safe to say that CZ will not remain the sole developer past a certain point. And if for whatever reason he resisted that and wanted to stay in control alone, I believe that would be the end of BBR.