I think the point being made is that you spent a lot of your opening post talking Git, and lead with that bit, rather than with Diversion. What makes Diversion different is added in the end, after you've spent time trying to convince Git fans that their current tooling isn't good. Worse, the examples you listed of why Git is bad is more reflective of configuration and processes than Git itself.

This is ultimately a very weak pitching strategy. The first thing you convey to your potential users is insecurity--an insecurity that people won't choose your product over Git. And it's hard to want to buy something from someone that isn't secure enough about their product to pitch the product first, and answer questions/make comparisons after, as a form of clarification.

Alternatively, instead of doing a comparison to Git, you could start with a list of "have you experienced these Git issues? <list of problems>. Here's how Diversion improves on Git in this regard." In this case you're actually solving people's problems, rather than looking like you're grasping at straws to complain about Git and justify an alternative.

FWIW, I personally have 0 interest in a cloud-first version control. I like the cloud as a form of backup and syncing with team members, but I ultimately want a version control that works as well offline as it does online, and prioritizes the local experience.

The main point of your post is how much better you are than git. You support this main point by making up lies about git. This does not make me personally interested in trying your product.