I was alluding to the fact that given the salubrious effect of many eyes/brains on FOSS, we may assume a dev has good intentions regardless of their actual motivation.
It works in reverse too; if a dev refuses to release the code, we may (IE must) assume he has bad intentions.
AMEN.
It has nothing to do with anon or not, on or off chain.
It has nothing to do with centralized or decentralized or anything in-between.
It has nothing to do with paid code reviews, marketing shill hype, or mudslinging between coin cult fanbois.
It has everything to do with the fact that these are "proof coordination networks" and without open source you have no reasonable way to know the structure of the proofs, or what they prove over, and in turn have no way to verify the usefulness of the proofs and function of the network as being sound, let alone altruistic. As such, you can have no alternative but to assume the coin does not function.
The whole "big idea" of crypto-currency is that, by the combination of the details of the implementation of proof coordination and Satoshi's social contract, no-one need explicitly trust any other singular entity. These closed source coins not only break the assumed social contract, but also explicitly obscure the implementation detail in doing so.
A closed source coin requests of you nothing short of 100% blind faith in the developers. In this case this is not just faith that their implementation is both as they claim and free of defect, but also faith that they will not malware your computer, steal all of your coins, monitor all of your activities, spam your address book with v1agra ads, impersonate your mother on facebook, etc.
We have to assume that any breach of the social contract is done explicitly to break the trust-free function of the network, as it accomplishes no other thing. The assumptions that have to be drawn in turn, as following from this, are all not very pretty. In other words, *any* reason to break the social contract is inherently a scary bad reason.
If a crypto coin does not offer up it's proof structures for review then it cannot be said to function correctly as a proof coordination network, and as such it must be assumed not to function correctly as a crypto coin.
If a crypto coin violates Satoshi's social contract then it cannot be said to function correctly as a trust-free network, and as such it must be assumed not to function correctly as a crypto coin.
Closed source coins are just simply not able to be rationally considered coins at all, no two ways about it.
You'd unquestionably be better off with Paypal, WoW gold, or the U.S. Fed minting your coins as at least then you have another open code and social contract to fall back on, called tort law.
Closed source coins are downright dangerous. You have no way to know what they can/will do, and no recourse if what they end up doing is harmful to you.