I'd prefer just waiting the extra days/weeks for the focus of code to be released, rather than diverting attention to setup an alpha auditing group to appease a handful of community members, when the code will be changing post audit. Seems pointless.
...
...
Yeah, I totally agree. @cpmcgrat has posted some good stuff in this thread, and overall I agree with his position that the code should be audited* but I also think his panties are too tightly wadded, so to speak. I also can't help but point out that this sort of complaining only tends to happen when a market is in a bear trend; everyone loved Facebook and saw no problem with its egregious data collection practices until Cambridge Analytica came along and used that data to influence much of the US to vote for The Donald (don't blame me - I always vote for the Libertarian candidate).
* - but for very different reasons, I suspect - I'm way more concerned about bugs like the kind that enabled a hacker to take over the entire Verge network and mine 20M coins.
I work in network security 9-5, which has hammered concerns into my head regarding any long running process with an internet connection.
I’d personally like to have an outsider audit the existing codebase because I believe I’m not the only one concerned with the delay of code release (seen numerous threads regarding this previously). I believe it could be a solid way to assure the community of the team’s intregrety, allow them to take their time with release, and overall be a net positive for the coin and it’s stakeholders
