I can relate to the devs' thinking.
Look at it this way:
It's late spring 2014. You have a plan of releasing browser mining in July, a "bank" interface by September and a course on cryptos on November; you state these goals clearly.
Now, there are hundreds of coins, assuming 10% have any competent devs, that's still tens.
As soon as you state those goals, some of the other coins notice those ideas, and implement them. Coin A makes a browser miner, coin B makes bank interface, coin C makes a crytpo course. All by July. Some other coins follow suit shortly.
Now it's July, and you have a browser miner, but other coins have that, some other coins have a bank interface, and some other has made a course.
By September you add a bank interface, and people say "meh, coin B has already had that for months". By November you write a course on cryptos, and people scream about a "ripoff of coin C's course".
Panda has always continued to make news of innovation, and this couldn't be possible without some kind of confidentiality. The end of the road is becoming the cryptocurrency for the masses, so the road is along these lines, I think.
Personally, I hope for the 100k merchants.
You are essentially making a case against the open source movement, against the core of all cryptocurrencies. Here is another way of looking at this.
All the coins that will survive must have a goal, and a road map leading towards it. If all you do is following and copying other's innovations, you won't survive long. The ones with a strong a vision, they already have their hands full, thus even if they want to steal something from us, they won't be able to, because they have to deliver what they have already promised. By the time they come around to copy our stuff, we would've already moved onto the next thing.
It's always better to be open and transparent than to hide cowardly in the dark.
Erm, have you ever even worked on anything open source?
All the open source movement is about is sharing the source of things that have been developed - so that users or other developers can modify and/or contribute to it if they like - it has absolute nothing/zilch/nada to do with roadmaps or sharing future plans, or any of the other stuff you are implying, these are all just things that you have made up, while you may attach them to open source that doesn't mean anyone else does and if you take the time to go visit the webpages (some don't even have webpages) of the thousands of open source projects out there you will quickly see that what you have said is nonsense.
What you have as an argument is basically "all the other coins do it" - and well "all the other coins" are scams/useless so I'm not sure they are a good example to be copying. What you are essentially complaining about is that pandacoin is being run in a more sensible way than other coins and not trying to be a hype factory. These are not sudden terms the developers have had this stance from the start - if you invested you did so already knowing this so expecting them to change their stance for you is an unfair position.
Many open source developers won't even support their code or answer questions about it