Not if you think that at least one of these competitors succeeds 
ā¦you wouldnāt want to place a bet on the wrong horse, do you?
It seems strange, but in the end it can be of advantage for both competitors, if there are individuals following the development closely. One might learn from the mistakes of the other.
And even if in the end only one succeeds this one will even be stronger than without learning from the other.
Iām aware that this might be perceived controversial, but my understanding is the NSR grants that have been developed for Nu and the seeded auctions @Nagalim is trying to create are ultimately quickened by the ponzi allegations - the allegations have made Nu stronger and better positioned.
Having competitors is not only bad 
And so I think having members with active roles in competing looks strange, but itās not necessarily for the bad as long as it happens in a transparent way.