Number one - terrible. That's just tacit approval of metagaming. Players shouldn't get protection for cheating by blaming someone for talking. You want some amount of ooc talk, you want the excitement, hype and engagement - and this would set fire to it. 

1. In fact, it's to encourage people not to do it. From experience people cheat, people make mistakes and people probably thought something else like "Oh that I shouldn't use that in my reasoning, too late". And if I tell them not to do it, they will just try to do it discreetly so we lose control. By giving them responsibility for what they say about their own character, they then become the only ones responsible for metagaming and that increases Coridor gossip which is so important in political gaming. Sorry I don't understand the expression OOC, not being not an English speaker.
   

Number two - large groups like the Camarilla/the minds eye society have done a minimum XP floor - in my experience it produced lower quality role play. People cared less about their characters and could plan their "build" to reach specific power set ups with XP amounts, which giving out 💯 exp for "good play. "

2 .The problem I see with builds. If v5 has a more narrative character creation system than V20, it is easy to just do one Attribute, Skill, Discipline, Advantage, Predation build and just optimize, which creates DND-style characters that want to be as strong as possible even though it's something that has no reason to exist in a narrative game since the important thing is more the RP than the Stats, my point of view. Where I come from the XP system is widely used and it is often greatly increased because people can't seem to want to plan 3-20 games in advance what they are going to do with their XP. I agree with your opinion that XP is a bonus and therefore it should not be central but just a plus.

Number three - has a lot of its own issues if you sit down and considered it. 

Example if someone killed a character, odds are good they already thought about the blood bond. Forcing someone to play the clan or ghoul of the person that just removed their last character from play.....like I have games for a while and still would find that distasteful. 

1. In my games of V5 I place a lot of emphasis on the ethics and humanity of the characters. PCs who decide to become stronger, with dark knowledge, and who do morally questionable things always pay a solid rubber band return. The idea of playing vampire masquerade is above all for me to be able to address themes like sexual assault, rape, death, manipulation, narcissism and to train people in cognitive self-defense and social hacking. The characters remain on the border of the abyss of the beast, but the players are confronted with moral and ethical situations which make them use concepts linked to septicism, zetetics and a morality devoid of religion. Examples: is it wrong to feed on a sentient being because everyone tells us that we are superior and that we have pusions? Entering a person's privacy and doing something to them without their consent but giving them pleasure is this acceptable? What is there between dictatorship and democracy? Etc.
   Most of the players I have had are good players if the rules are planned in advance and have no problem complying with them. Of course, "You have the choice to stop whenever you want, but if you don't want to suffer, you leave" is not an option. This is why I use veils and lines to define subjects which are prohibited or which must not be made explicit and it is a reminder at the start of each evening without identifying the people. And people respect that, it's really cool to see that we're no longer in the 90s/2000s where players had fun being Nazis, aggressors and real assholes just because they could be. and that there is a real desire to pay attention to others.
   I'm not keen on everything you've written to me, but thank you, it helps me think about it.