I think it’s mainly a perception thing. People like to say that the big innovation of the blockchain is that it’s a “trustless” environment (because of smart contracts and audit trails, for example). But, at the end of the day, there’s always going to be a measure of trust that users will need to have in the devs. As you said, even if one randomizes a set or adjusts the starting index at random, an inside dev would still likely be able to obtain privileged info on a set. I’ve launched quite a few sets, as I do generative NFT coding for a living, and it took me a while to fully appreciate the implications of this and other security-related measures around NFT sets. In the end, I do like to use provenance hashes, but I feel like the ID adjustments actually introduce other problems. For example, if you organically mint ID #123, and that ID is actually a super rare, then it’s clearly not good for *you* if I adjust the IDs prior to reveal. Your ape artificially becomes ID #234, though it really was #123 organically, and now you have rank #8890/10000 when your actual one might’ve been #15/10,000. I can see arguments either way, of course, but my own preference (admittedly, it’s just a preference) is for the dev in this situation to keep all such info strictly private, even from the rest of the team and/or the set owners, and then lets the NFTs fall where they may.