[flipperto]

You are just talking without any bases. It is true that ZK is a rather new concept in applied cryptography, but the theory has been around for a while now, without any relevant breakthrough in possible attacks. Monero cryptography comes from primitives that are not new to cryptocurrencies and have been in the cryptography scene for a couple of decades now. One could argue that theory and implementation are two very different problems, but even in the implementation side there haven't been any severe vulnerabilities (the only that comes to my mind now is the double spending attack that could be done because of a missing check in a signature). Again, the one you cited is far from a real attack on Monero. Do you have any concrete examples of parts of the protocol that are so new and immature that we should distrust for this reason?

At the end of the day it is a matter of trust and risk. I trust the mathematics of it because I took the time to read about it and understand the claims of security being made. I also have some trust in the team writing the software because I have been following their development relatively close. You may have done the same and come to the conclusion that they are not that serious or competent, but claiming that Monero is not to be trusted because the cryptography is too new is just an exaggerated view. This things are not being claimed without a proper basis.

Now, I am only talking about Monero here, there are several other crypto-systems using more esoteric methods than Monero that I wouldn't have the same trust in them, like ZCash and its derivatives. They use far more novel cryptography (zk-SNARKs) and some debatable design decisions (trusted setup, optional privacy, developers taking a chunk of mined coins).