This is a great post. This thread has, so far, been mostly about various forms of virtue signalling and "put up and shut up" mentality. All we can draw from it is that there are many people who are eager to talk about how good they are at Netrunner, and that apparently the 200 people who went to Worlds mostly didn't play Skorpios, so that's fine, that's conclusive then.
To me, the sheer number of "eyeroll matchups"—you call it a coin-flip, but I don't think that goes far enough—is one of the biggest challenges Netrunner faces in attracting and retaining players. I think that this begins with the design of IDs, and that a poorly-designed ID is harder to correct for than a poorly-designed card of some other type. Michael Boggs has shown that he means business by banning cards after the fact, but I think a lot more work needs to be put in during the design phase to make sure IDs "sit well in the mix."
It's really hard for me to understand a design philosophy that releases outright dud IDs (Nero, Khan), but also occasionally does seem to consider the effect a new ID can have on the broader set of matchups available (e.g. buffing CTM because Jesminder is a card). I just don't get it. The whole thing seems like they're just making it up as they go along. Damon released a whole bunch of "fuck you" cards like that, and I really really question the effect they have on the broader game.
In the bigger picture, I don't really care how good anyone is at the Skorpios matchup or whether anyone at Worlds played it or not. That's not the point, we should expect better designed and tested IDs that create good, entertaining matchups at all levels of play, and do not invalidate sections of the card pool. (Whether runner recursion was out of whack or not is a separate issue you can argue if you like, the solution was not to print Skorpios.)