I think this is completely wrong way to look at it.
The team and the community wouldn’t go out on a limb for something it doesn’t want. And if it’s something we want, there is nothing to laugh about? Anyone laughing obviously is completely irrelevant then? Why care about them, totally wrong way to lead life or anything.
Just looking at complementing with an ERC20:
The tokens are more than just playground for quick buck diggers, they are an entry to the project, to the world of this project. People get to know about SAFENetwork through the token. That is the valuable part. Me personally, I don’t trade so I have no use for ERC20. But I see how the increased accessibility that it provides, is beneficial for the community and the project. That is what is important.
So, IMO, if the thesis holds, that increased availability leads to growing community, and that a growing community is good for the project, in combination with no significant downsides or insurmountable hurdles related to the ERC20 issuance … then it’s a no-brainer… No?
Because this project won’t be done this or next year, and that is a very long time where we can have this project become more available. The network needs many nodes at start to be secure, and that is one big reason. Another is that it needs more developers to make the apps for it. Sure we can say that we don’t need it, because everyone will be there at day 1 when we launch (since project is so awesome 
). But it would seem to me that risks are managed better if not relying on such assumptions.