I was with Bram though! It was never meant to be secure in a cryptographic sense...
This can even mean someone's loss of life in the right (meaning wrong) regime, or property (e.g. storing bitcoin info there).
It's like advertising a "self-driving technology" when your car needs human supervision to not crash and kill you or someone you fall into.
The mistake you are referring to is someone that assumes "encrypted" means three letter agency safe, which is a pretty terrible way to leverage encryption. In that case, it's exactly like hopping in a Tesla and assuming auto pilot will take you home without your supervision.
That's not a mistake, that's table stakes. People reading that X offers "encryption", should assume its cryptographically safe to the standards of the day, and be given that.
Not just some "safe from your spouse, ...maybe..." glorified rot13.
Else, just don't offer it. It's not Vim's place to offer "file encryption" anyway, especially if they can't keep that promise. It's fine not to offer it.
And it doesn't have to be a "three letter agency" that's the threat. The "angry ex-girlfriend" could might as well be a programmer. Or have a script-kiddie nephew. Or know a person or two who can use off-the-shelf tools to decrypt it. And the file might have things like a person's bank account passwords.
Thus, the GF V. FBI scenario. Just because you "encrypt" something doesn't make it '100% Safe'. Such as someone keylogging you for your onepass pass.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/national-...