Well, let me describe that a bit with more details.
As many of you know, I was banned for a short time from the forums. In that time I experienced the intentions and professionality and dedication of the responsible officials in a very positive way which is the driving force behind my thoughts about what really happens on the official side and what not. I will say I see it as my duty to reward their dedication and professionality with believing and trusting them. I will do my best to support them because I believe in what they do (but not blindly if you think that) and I am a person of honor and I try to operate on the same level of professionality and dedication as they do.
In general: The officials do read the forums, I assure that because of I can guarantee that by my experiences and they do take everything posted here into account for the context it is posted in.
Transparency is a good approach but requires a strong framework to guarantee that. Such a framework needs a solid foundation (a Code of Conduct, a team to enforce and regulate, a Constitution and a pool of people who validate it from a civil side). Transparency is also a tool but a 100% transparency level is impossible and would consume more time as it is worth it. 100% transparency is also only needed when the level of trust of the involved audiences is down to a dramatic level (we are far away from that). Transparency is also a weapon, a weapon that can be used as a political threat by the audience that requires information, regardless if such information would add any value.
The thing is: some people who contribute here (you are one of them) mostly decide based on their current thoughts, based on incomplete references and they think that they are on a way that might be the best. Nothing wrong with that, this is how political intervention by civilians work nowadays. But the top-most of such attempts have only two endings: a failure where the person wants to leave and a micro-revolution which casts more threat on an entity that is under pressure. Sounds dramatical, but it isn't. It is based on frustration, but the results might increase such frustration even more because they do not see any relevancy for continue in trusting and dedicating to the entire thing because one cog of a complex machine does not work the way they wish.
We do need more dedication, we need more participation and activism, but we need it as contributions, not as guns on chests based on personal fears about a mechanism that was not entirely understood. I know this explanation might be hard to get, but such open letters to the boss of the bosses are one of such guns on chests. Nothing that ignites changes as you'll see.
To me, governments are fully based on trust and laws. What we can achieve here is to build laws, but that requires that we have to trust first that those laws we are about to construct will ever happen.
In sum, the lack of knowledge about some significant things at the constitution is the other thing that must be defused (by us or research, not by officials). One of those significant things is the (currently drafted) chosen government. A constitutional monarchy is a monarchy, so far so good. A monarchy itself might suppose the existence of a ruling representative, called a king. The truth is, a monarchy is just a loosely defined body of a government where an (in general representative) king is at the top of the hierarchy. There is no general pattern for monarchies that define that a king has all powers or that a king serves as the king for his entire life. A monarchy can be based on democracy, even a king could be elected every 4 years. The head of the monarchy is just a role in a complex hierarchy, not more. A monarchy is also about distributing tasks to lower ranks of the monarchy, but it's not written down how that must be distributed. It's also not described anywhere that a monarchy must be ruled by the king, it can be a prince, princess, emperor or even a president.
The other significant thing is, a draft is not meant as a final document. A draft is open to changes and the request for feedback - as long as you don't require to see any negative intentions - is a request for contributions to modify the document which was composed by the few to the needs of the many.
As I said in this response, it is not blind trust that forces me to support it in a very positive manner. It is the belief in the entire thing and the experience and knowledge I have that provides me a point of view on where we are and where we go and what is possible and finally what is the fuel of my dedication and loyalty. I have no personal goals I do follow here, I do aim for higher goals which are why I do not place my private merits when deciding what might be good for Asgardia and what might fail.
I hope it is now more clear why I do what I do and why those things might have more value than some people might think it has. We all do work here for one thing: a future of Asgardia. This is why we are here, don't get bunkered by misunderstandings, if needed theorize about a (probably wished or mostly intended) government and show them why you think it won't work, but consider to get surprised that - with enough research - you might change your mind and consider it as a valuable government.