I agree with you.

Help Cure Muscular Dystrophy - Phase 2 --- 9:179:21:06:16

I feel like now there's a little calm after the DSFL storm, may we talk about this topic again?

It probably won't, I agree. However, continued feedback from the volunteer community is fair and appropriate. So, if community members raise a continued desire for additional badges, there is nothing wrong with that. So hopefully one day WCG will pick that up and address it. Albeit, and I am sure every single WCG contributor will agree with that, this little "vanity" should never take priority over the actual/scientific work performed by the WCG staff.

I say 'credit where credit's due' - not that this issue is ever going to effect me.
It was a most unfortunate decision that the WCG selected badges for runtime rather than points. This encourages low-power HT systems such as atom CPU's, people to keep high energy requiring Pent. D HT systems amongst others, the running of underclocked (low-power profiles) and the selection of systems that spend longer running the hard to come by Beta, DDDT2 and HCMD2 tasks. The I/O performance issues with CEP2 would also be relatively less with a low powered HT system. So that is 4 projects that better credit low powered HT systems.

I was surprised that the WCG missed the opportunity to rectify these problems with the release of the last new project. These issues seem to have been around for a some time, and oddly left unfixed. I think this is disrespectful to the concerned crunchers.

4 years, seems like an obvious choice, should the WCG want to continue in the same vein, but 5 million points would make more sense.

Sure, it should be debated, how badges should be given: for Runtime or Points.
Fundamentally it should be runtime against points. Runtime is (should be) the effective time spent by a CPU core to crunch for WCG. It does not mean that this runtime is efficiently used. Not at all. I think here we have to reward justly the efforts relative to what one can offer.
If you have a Cray Jaguar supercomputer available and use it for 10 minutes, you will generate around 10 million points. You will be on the top of points list and that is normal, but you made available your machine for just 10 minutes out of 24 hours (0.69 %).
If you only can afford to have just a low performance PC but make the effort to have it available say 12 hours per day (50%) then who is doing relatively the biggest effort?
You have to put aside the financial parameter, otherwise you will reward the fat wallet and forget the others. But a lot of thinner wallets will beat the fattest one. And here we need quantity. So it is correct to reward the slow going machines too.
So we have the points classification to reward results, and the badges to reward the time.

Regarding points, frankly the points generation system is a little artificial at least if you try to rank yourself in BOINC. Those using GPU capable projects will generate enormous amount of points, but in terms of runtime you only have 24 hours in a day. Points can also be tweaked to make a project more attractive.

Now this said I think too that we should have badges for 5, 10, 20, 30, 50, years per project. I am sure if such badges would exist, the CEP2 project would clearly get more attention and effort, as the badge race would continue after the 2 year sapphire limit.
We could also imagine special badges 50, 75, 100 years for the cumulative runtime.