I'll take this as a straight question, not a rhetorical question. The answer is three fold:

1) due to other commitments I have not enough time to get seriously involved in such a project. At the same time I don't want to get tangled in some abandonware crapcoin, even if just part-time.

2) it is my observation that the publicly stated goals of majority cryptocoin projects are very different from the personal goals of the authors. It is a conflict of interest minefield.

3) the whole market of floating-point developers and users is deeply split in their understanding what does it mean to have "reproducible results":

3a) some want that their simulations differ very little or not at all. I'm more in this group and that is the approach to be included in cryptocurrency.

3b) others focus on the reproducibility of the end results, e.g. the launched missiles hit the evading targets or the cell phones keep the connection when driving in or out of the tunnel. Those people would laugh at trying to incorporate floating-point calculations in the PoW code.

None of the above two camps have monopoly on being good or bad, right or wrong. If you (or some other reader) is interested about the above split it is worthwhile to study how the Java language introduced the keyword strictfp.

Intel is definitely serving camp 3a). Nvidia is started in 3b). AMD started in 3a) but shifted into center after acquisition of ATI from 3b). FPGA vendors try to serve both camps, but have way more success stories in 3b).

I don't think anyone here would get offended. I'm even grateful for your post as it helped to prove my point.

I'm also grateful for the correction below that is the other half of the proof of my point.

Well, Chuck Norris is known to successfully divide by zero. Maybe he's posting here under an alias? Or maybe he had spread his knowledge of previously illegal operations to the "energy industry" or the "GPU hoarders"? Who knows?

Reference please.

Specs ?

In those price points you won’t see 20+kh Cryptonight and 17GH/s Keccak

You’ll also be dealing with older chips - 28nm variety Xilinx 7 series.

But - you can get performance on par with similarly priced GPUs (at 10% of power)for most of the discussed algorithms. And that’s from a relatively new platform that hasn’t had near the level of optimization. I hesitate to give exact specs yet because things can change between engineering samples and shipping products.

Overall if you have $500 to spend and want to get into FPGAs you can do it profitably, but if you have $5000 you can participate much more profitably $ for $.

Re: your short story. I have shelled out big bucks for GPUs to run miners written by anonymous programmers I've never met either. How is that different?

Ok, this particular anonymous programmer has no public track record, yet. But neither did Claymore et al at some stage.

While it's winter where I am and I appreciate the heat I would far prefer to be able to run more miners on the same circuit and dig a heater out of storage if that's what it takes.

Im not alone in being hyped to mine lux with fpga
But as i just went for ti rigg instead il be happy if they succeed in making it resistant :p Just hope no one bought to mine lux if they do succeed, others pain is not my gain.

The Phi algo change will test the theory that they can adapt the fpga soffware in a matter of hours or days??
Also I don't get why the engineering samples of these boards are cheaper and they can put them in mass production for a higher price?? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Each fpga device requires a unique bitstream. Think about it.