In the ecosystem of cryptocurrency, there are two general philosophies that are almost akin to political parties. I call them Purists and Practicalists. A differing view of seeing how things should be or ought to be and how the value should be assigned. Bitcoin, for example, could be considered Purist by some, as long as it remains exactly as it is and never changes no matter what. A 
Practicalist, on the other hand, would insist Bitcoin must change and adapt or become irrelevant. Obviously, they will fight till the end of time knowing the other side is foolish, or worse, when in fact, they both have very good points and are speaking the truth as they see it. 

Some might try to compromise and suggest that at least the flaws should be updated, like malleability, but others almost embrace flaws as part of the design and deify a developer or original concept as perfection, even though perfection itself in technology requires adaption and change, or it is outdated. This is a bit of a paradox in cryptocurrency. The Purists are right that trust comes from stability and consistency and from the immutable blockchain, but what happens when a bug creates billions of Bitcoins as it has in the past? The only solution at that point was the practical one, to hard fork and fix the code, or everything would fail and the experiment ends. 

We have also seen this play out with Ethereum and Ethereum Classic, funds were exploited and it was so bad there was no possible way for the project to survive with such a great loss, it would have been ruined and investors destroyed. They faced an impossible choice, even if they were Purists, let the project die and the investors lose money, or hard fork and resolve the problem and risk the perception of being "impure." They decided to be practical. As most of you know some miners decided to keep mining the pre-fork Ethereum chain, and considered themselves purists that would not 
hard fork. Of course with Ethereum, that is not really a choice, it has to happen as it is so new and experimental, as Bitcoin was back when the Billions of Bitcoins appeared.

A Purist would also insist on having no 
premine, but they are ok with people that are clever enough to figure out a way to exploit code, or to mine with GPUs almost indefinitely while the masses are still mining with CPUs. Whales have made vast fortunes this way and never talk about it, but the Purists that know think this is totally fine and fair, as the individual was clever enough to figure it out and get the advantage, they deserve the exploited funds, they deserve to mine with hash power 10x more than those who do not know how to figure it out. Practicalists, on the other hand, do not, they would consider this less fair, and if you are following what I am saying close enough, you can see how this is very much like the political spectrum of the left and right.

So when you are trying to understand the motives of legit projects and developers, the motives of Bitcoin Maximalists, those that use words like “scammers” and “
shitcoins” casually like a sociopath in some cases, realize this is just a political mindset of the other side. In the end, the Purists and the Practicalists, for honest projects that are trying their best to do the right thing, should treat each other with respect and dignity as they would want to be treated themselves. Each side should realize they are not the enemy, the real scammers, the ones that never even plan on trying to build something real are the enemy, and the sooner each side sees this the better. Since if the crypto ecosystem cannot regulate itself in a reasonable way, there are plenty of outsiders willing to step in and do it for us.