You did not fully set it up. However you did say, in so many words, that having insiders wanting to sell is a very negative sign about the company. And said it criticizing the lack of a period where insiders were locked out of the market.
It is normal for banks conducting an IPO to want one set of things, and for early employees and early investors to want another. Both lockup periods and a chance to have an IPO pop are things that banks conducting an IPO want to have. The company itself has no desire for either, but are pushed into them.
It is normal to hand over as much as a quarter of a company's value to rich people who are lucky enough to get into an IPO. It is normal to force early employees to stay out of the market for an extended period of time. I personally know a number of people who during the dot com crash wound up with a tax bill that exceeded their salary and no way to pay it. (Their company IPOed, thereby locking them in under AMT rules. By the time they could sell, the dot com crash had happened and they didn't make enough to pay their taxes.)
The fact that these things are normal does not mean that they are fair and reasonable. Just that they are business as usual.
It is no surprise that a company which bucked Wall St on one issue would challenge both of them.
