Try to look at this from an unbiased, business-like perspective. To keep developing the game, FD need resources that they can get only in two ways: siphoning revenue from their other projects (bad), or generating revenue with their flagship product (good). And for that, a rich and solid Open play experience is key.
And here is the thing: We don't know. We don't have precise data, instead relying on hearsay, anecdotal evidence, and the few numbers that MMO devs let out. We have little enough data that we are left to personal interpretation.
And my own interpretation of the available data is that, as far as keeping a large and stable player base goes, promoting non-consensual PvP — for example, by giving bonuses to activities done while under threat of it happening — is the riskier way, only viable for small niche games. EVE is kind of a counter example, of course — but EVE, compared with nearly every other game that goes that way, is as out of proportion as WoW among the other PvE-centric MMOs, and just like with WoW most MMOs that tried to copy EVE's model crashed and burned. And even EVE doesn't allow the kind of lawless environment ED allows; yeah, suicide ganking exists, but targeting anything that can tank even a little bit comes with a fairly high cost, and before long suicide gankers need to stop to grind back reputation in order to not be shot down on sight in high-sec.
The issue is not PvP per see, of course; fully consensual PvP thrives, as the FPS and MOBA genres prove. And some countries do seem to enjoy non-consensual PvP, looking at which MMOs, locally-made and imported, have the largest player base there; Brazil, most of Asia (Japan being a huge exception), and a couple European countries come to mind. But, for a game meant to be sold mostly in the west, non-consensual PvP not only doesn't seem to be a big draw, it seems to drive away more players than it brings unless the game is meant just for the niche of open PvP lovers.
Atop that, ED has penalties for failure I consider inconsistent, counter-intuitive, and that for a new player might even feel random and arbitrary, particularly so after the tweak to repair costs. Being shot a lot carries no penalty until the shields are gone; it costs peanuts while the ship wasn't destroyed yet; and, when the ship is destroyed, the penalty can be 5% of the ship's value if the player has banked money, or 100% if the player hasn't, which means those that can afford the larger penalty actually get the smaller one. Also, it is a game that allows players to suffer actual setbacks when they die; games with penalties like this tend to quickly go through the available player base, soon becoming empty unless they manage to continually attract fresh blood. Those "I quit" posts we see here from players that couldn't cover the buyback cost? The vast majority of players that quit never post those, they just stop logging and leave the game (which, in a way, is even worse for the devs, as they don't get to know what drove those players away).
I do believe both of those are already issues for ED; other games with similarly free PvP and harsh penalties that posted player retention stats had serious issues keeping players in the game, and I have no reason to suspect ED would be any different. Solo and group modes mitigate those issues somewhat, but not completely, as Open being the default mode might make players feel like open is what the game is meant to be, and make them leave the game if they don't enjoy open even if they would have liked solo or a group like Mobius.
And no, I don't think open is the most important mode for ED's future. Every game that allows players to choose between playing alone or with others that I've seen release player preference statistics had far more players alone than in multiplayer. If that is the case here, far more important for ED's future is that players in solo and private groups don't feel like they are getting the short end of the stick.
Now, to be fair, I do think we both have issues with confirmation bias. I, for one, can't even understand how someone can find non-consensual PvP enjoyable; being attacked by another player when I've not opted for PvP isn't just unenjoyable, it often ruins my day, even if I wiped the floor with my would-be attacker, so I really can't see how it could be fun for others. As such, I have a hard time figuring what would be enjoyable for those players. What I can say is that anything that makes me feel like PvPers are getting special treatment, makes me feel like people that refuse to ever open themselves for PvP are being penalized, would sharply reduce my willingness to play, and reduce even more my willingness to purchase anything more from the game's store.