Assuming your design is correct and secure - and that is already really hard to do - you still have to ensure that you implementation matches your design, i.e. contains no defects, and this is harder in a dynamically typed language, because there are classes of defects that the compiler of a statically typed language will catch while they go unnoticed using a dynamically typed language. So dynamically typed languages are not less correct or secure on their own, they just do not prevent you from writing incorrect or insecure code in the same way statically typed languages do.

One example I once read about are control systems for rockets and missiles - they use different data types for x, y and z coordinates. They are all just numbers but you really want to make sure that you do not accidentally swap two variables and the missile turns left while it should ascend. And you just can not enforce such constraints in dynamically typed languages.

It's harder to reason about the behavior of a program running in an environment that allows monkey patching and eval().

Starting off on the wrong foot.

I've actually talked with Kevin before, they do seem to care about open-source & security & scalability. I mean, from what we talked about, I got the sense they do. But for them, I think things are moving fast, and it's hard to please everyone, all the time, especially when you need to prioritize the business. It seems they care about open-source as a reassurance to security. And I think they do want to give back to the community.

Open source, yes. Free software, no.

Sadly this was open source, not free.

It's legal, but that certainly doesn't mean it's ethical or that it inspires trust.