At this point I believe that its "bad reputation" as an investment tool would be a good thing.
Well, everyone involved were recommending people not to invest in Bitcoin from day one, people invested nonetheless, and now they are complaining that Bitcoin is a bad idea because it was a bad investment for them.
As I said, my theory is, inward money flow hasn't helped with Bitcoin development very much. Would Bitcoin be in a better state if it hadn't got this much attention from investors this year? In one hand, there were a lot of attacks that would otherwise wouldn't happen, which is a good thing from a development perspective. On the other hand, focus has shifted from strengthening fundamental structure to building user friendly tools, some of which wouldn't even be needed if those problems were solved at a lower level. I applaud core developers for picking the right roadmap though.
Yeah, it's a matter of opinion, but I think the way to go is creating a solid structure and generating ideas to solve future practical problems first and then presenting it to the greater public. Of course development and problem solving would be slower that way (at least since a lot less people will be involved with less publicity), but I think it's a good trade-off. Enthusiast will always pay attention either way.