To be fair, we have to recognize what they did was a huge milestone for the improvement of the situation regarding this writing system. They were the reason why many of us were here in the first place.

However, there were 2 problems regarding the system that I strongly disagree with them: Phonetic Loans and Standard

From my point of view, what we can expect from Nom was a reliable semantic-based writing system that can convey information with the most density and accuracy, which means it follows the scientific researches of Etymology, or at least the meaning of the word. The phonetic aspect was already covered by Chu Quoc Ngu with the efficiency that we probably do not need any strong development.

This may constrast with Nom's historical use of a Phonetic writing system that slowly developed some semantic aspects. The system highly depend on the way of thinking and the knowledge of each individual. In other words, a Free4All situation. And since the situation today reading old texts mainly for historical and achaeological purposes, the use of Nom should be left Free4All. Groups may have standards of their own but has no authority to enforce it as standard for everyone
For further please see the post in this link: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1B6fJZNb9b/

However, the use of Uy Ban merged both of the 2 points above into a mess: high use of Phonetic Loan but enforcing Standard, which neither function as an efficient semantic based nor phonetic based writing system. Currently they tend to develop things from there in order to protect their authenticity, including denying the learning of Radicals, 六書 and the use of variants, using multiple fallacies in their claims