Open source is definitely important part. The "trust" I was referring to was deliberately ambiguous. There's not just leap of faith that potential users have to make to ensure that there are no deliberate backdoors or flaws in this software - there's also trust that this project will be cared and maintained for over time: bugs will be acknowledged (and even fixed :) ), builds for new platforms will work, security issues will be dealt with...

I'm not suggesting that bugs won't be fixed or there are backdoors, and this is definitely a really interesting project. However there's just very little to convince me that I should trust this project for anything more than a throw-away experiment right now.

"the project was not initially meant to be OpenSourced"

Sounds like an interesting backstory - what's the motivation to open source it so?

"Not being famous does not necessarily means being suspicious."

It's not being famous that matters here. Publishing software anonymously is unusual (I'm sure there are exceptions here, however they're definitely exceptions). Whenever I read of a new web service or software I generally dig into who is behind it and why they're doing it. Code on its own does not convince you to use it.