I'd be straight up terrified to trust anything serious with this guy's work.
In this instance, the demo won't even load for me and the documentation page can't be bothered to put the most basic of padding in it. Why even release publicly?
Promises, promises.
For instance, when asked how the memory management system works, here you see a team member give the standard response: the compiler inserts calls to free when it detects the variable is no longer used. This seems reasonable to anyone who hasn't thought much about PL/compilers before. But when pressed further, you see Alex admit "most stuff is simply cloned ATM" which is in stark contrast to the "autofree handles 90-100% of objects for you" on their homepage.
Or this where Alex shows he has no idea what UB is?
UB is a property of the language's abstract machine. Common C UB like dereferencing a null pointer or signed integer overflow has well defined semantics on basically any commodity hardware manufactured in three decades and yet it is still UB not because of the runtime properties but because the C abstract machine says it can't happen and compilers are free to optimize based on that assumption. For a language that compiles to C and claims no UB, the author should have a much better understanding of this.
I generally encourage new programming language efforts, so I'm willing to be more generous with forgiveness in the hopes that this succeeds.
In my perception it was mostly sold as a piece of engineering by PR like this (quote from OP): Cheapest server $160 $20 $3.50 [2]
Given the over-prommise-under-deliver launch of V, it boggles my mind that it gained so much traction on GH.