I feel like a company named "Shadow" funded by "Acronym" doesn't instill confidence.
Doubtful, considering many members of the moderate Democratic establishment were involved or associated with these companies, including former advisers and strategists of the Clinton campaign, which was definitely not progressive. Buttigieg, a moderate, and his campaign have also worked with these companies. So I think it’s misleading to call them “progressive”; it would be more accurate to say “moderate” or “establishment”.
I'm not sure if I should interpret it as a isolated case of misjudgment, evidence of poor organizational features, overinterpreting the significance of this by outsiders (the Iowa caucuses are notoriously fuzzy, which is kinda the point of them, so maybe the party saw this as an appropriate test case?), technological naivete, or what.