I suspect very few researchers are doing work that requires meter specific accuracy of location. If they do need it, EBird records of birds in GBIF outnumber iNaturalist contributions by a factor of 150:1 (705 million v 4.7 million).
Any professional researcher is going to evaluate any potential outliers and most importantly research their dataset to understand its components.
Obscuring does not make species ‘appear to live in areas that they don’t’ because it is clearly stated in the record that the sighting is within a defined area, not a precise gps location. Anyone who fails to recognize that, the failure is theirs for not researching their dataset.
The biggest and most important global biodiversity aggregator (GBIF themselves) have no issue accepting records with known obscured locations.
Birds in North America have their conservation status set based on their breeding status, not abundance at a particular time of year.
I’m not convinced by the agument that because another site does it differently we should follow. If that is the case, we should simply turn off all obscuring, after all you will always be able to find a source where exact locations are discussed/disclosed.
iNat should do what is best for iNat users, the science, the site, but most importantly what is best for the animals and plants themselves.