No that is a mischaracterization. What happened was that a bounty was offered for revealing an exploit that was shown to be stronger than what we had already published. The exploit turned out to have no obvious relevance to BCX, but nevertheless the requirements were met and the bounty was paid.

TFM is not "working for" the Monero project and has no obligation to us at all. He is welcome to contribute based on the project being open source as I discussed in my previous message. Useful contributions would likely take the form of code or well formed mathematical analysis. That is exceedingly rare here, but it does happen.

In case the issue of Linux comes up again, I will point out that I have personally made contributions to Linux. They took the form of recommended code changes coupled with test cases that clearly and explicitly demonstrated the benefit of the proposed code changes. If I simply posted about how this or that was a possible flaw without doing the work to support my claims, I would likely be ignored or ridiculed, as I have seen happen to many people in the Linux developer community.

TFM: "Entanglement" is no more an issue than reversal of the often-untraceable transfer of coins after a long (but ultimately temporary) chain fork, particularly through exchanges and other intermediaries. In both cases, when the fork is resolved one way or another, some transactions will be unwound, and those who accepted coins as valid on the wrong fork without a sufficient number of confirmations (always a judgement call) are out of luck. The only possible difference would be the ability to blacklist "bad" coins in traceable chains but not Monero, and this is a feature not a bug.