Maybe a category for public developer?
In the current political and legal environment, being public puts both the developer, and the project, at risk.
A financially independent, anonymous developer, can afford to do what he believes is right. There is less risk that he may be put under duress, have his kids or wife kidnapped, be forced to do something against his will by a totalitarian government (and put under a gag order about it), or receive a friendly visit from the local mobsters. Or be subject to a targeted access operation by a three-letter agency. Being open source (and in the case of Nxt, even GPL), the project will survive and someone else will take over, even if the anonymous developer decides to leave at some point. We are talking about established cryptocurrency projects here, not assets where indeed an anonymous asset issuer can decide to disappear with the shareholders' funds. Being public or anonymous does not make it more or less likely that a developer would leave the project, Nxt has seen a few public developers leave, and then new ones join (and even though anonymous, I am still around).
A public developer, funded by VC investments, must ultimately do what the VC's tell him. Being very profit oriented, some VCs will just run a company to the ground for the short term profit, and they couldn't care less about the cryptocurrency movement goals of decentralization, financial independence, being in control of your own money and investments, not having to trust third parties, etc. A public developer may need to do what is politically correct, rather than what is morally correct, or risk jeopardizing his future career.
Back on topic, I think we should limit this to an objective comparison of the technical characteristics of the 2.0 platforms, existing or being currently worked on.