This statement includes a number of bald assertions, some IMHO false or irrelevant.
It says that, "A stated goal of ProgPoW is to avoid contentious forks while transitioning to proof-of-stake…” But there is no such statement in the progPow proposal, and I don’t recall this argument being raised in the Core Dev’s initial deliberations.
It says that, "Later this year, Ethereum will begin to transition away from proof-of-work consensus towards proof-of-stake… “ which “… introduces technical risk at a time when efforts and attention should be focused elsewhere.” I submit that we do not know when proof-of-stake will happen, if ever. Not every beginning leads to a successful ending.
It says that. "Some stakeholders have suggested that ProgPoW offers no clear benefit to Ethereum’s transition to PoS and may centralize hashpower. There is no evidence that it will serve its intended purpose of better aligning miner incentives to disincentivize adversarial miner tactics. Which stakeholders? Is a suggestion an argument? Have they looked for evidence? And is that the intended purpose? What are the tactics?
In between it talks a lot about the contention and division in the community, which are indubitally there, and a good reason to back off of progPoW. Are their other ways past the contention? If ASICs are indeed a security threat this can can’t be kicked down the road forever.