We appreciated your calm and technical response. This post doesn't sound like one. There is no need for bad publicity. So let's stick to the facts. Facts are:

1) Issue with potential malicious code in any adapter is existent, but you are not the first to notice it. We had an audit, and that was submitted as a point. Do you have an audit that warns about this particular scenario with update flag set to false?

2) Adding and updating an adapter is a relatively rare operation, and adapter's code is usually very plain and simple. Again, as suggested in auditor's paper, we are going to post every queued transaction on our site, so it will be transparent for everyone what exactly is going on. Do you publish all your time-locked TXs somewhere?

3) This design with adapters called via delegatecall was an intentional design. Was your ability to mess up with minting intentional?

4) In contrast to us never (yet) posted a malicious adapter, there was ALREADY your TX with this flag omitted. And you have admitted that.

There is no need to make a mockery symmetrical post, as this situation is not symmetrical.