The majority of the industry is behind the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) decision to put pot follows member on the back burner.
Almost two thirds of the 163 respondents to this week's Pensions Buzz survey said shelving the project was the right call.
Supporters said the DWP and the pension sector as a whole were already feeling the strain coping with auto-enrolment and ‘freedom and choice'.
Elsewhere in the survey, respondents supported the National Association of Pension Funds' rebrand, said mast trust assurance should be mandatory, and small schemes could share chief investment officers.
The majority of Pension Buzz respondents supported the Department for Work and Pensions decision (DWP) to put pot follows member on hold.
Many argued the DWP had more than enough to deal with and needed to focus on state pension changes, auto-enrolment and retirement flexibilities.
A commentator said: "Given the pressure the DWP's staff are already under, there is no way they will cope with everything that is being thrown at them. Something had to give."
Even the DWP recognised the project was dangerous and ill-conceived but was unable to ditch due it to Steve Webb's support, observed another.
However one in three said the decision was wrong and suggested scrapping pot follows member would have adverse consequences for other parts of the sector.
A pundit said: "Pot follows member and stopping short service refunds went hand in hand. Shelving pot follows member will significantly increase the number of small pots, and increased administrative burden."
Respondents supported the National Association of Pension Funds' decision to rebrand by a margin of almost two to one.
Supporters changing its name to the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association was a sign times were changing and the organisation had to move with them.
A contributor said: "Freedom and choice has meant that retirement provision is no longer all about pensions, and contract based defined contribution arrangements are not generally seen as pension funds. It was time to refresh."
But one respondent who agreed with the rebrand said: "It needs to become more relevant to the industry as a whole rather than being seen as focussed on the requirements of its large corporate membership."
Meanwhile three in ten opposed the change and a few saw it as a cynical marketing ploy. "It appears that the few make a decision for the majority," said a disgruntled critic
Another asked: "Are the NAPF realigning themselves for the future at a time when their traditional stakeholders need them most?"
More than half of those surveyed said completing the Master Trust Assurance Framework (MAF) should be compulsory for all master trusts.
Respondents said the measure would give consumers confidence in master trusts.
A somewhat baffled respondent asked: "Why would any employer use a scheme that was not prepared to go through the MAF process - and how could any adviser recommend such a scheme?"
There were too many small master trusts coming into the market without sufficient experience or financial backing according to one pundit. "We have already seen several disappear, leaving member contributions in limbo," they said.
One in eight was opposed to the MAF, with critics saying it would cost too much and block innovation. "The cost of the assurance framework makes it prohibitive - applies to both existing long-term providers as well as newcomers," said one critic.
Almost half of respondents were unfamiliar with or indifferent to gamification, but there were plenty of fans of engaging members through play.
Some 37% of respondents took the idea seriously. "Every avenue of communicating with members should be explored particularly when behavioural psychology is used to create the solution," said one.
Others echoed the view that schemes should use any method they could to communicate with members and increase awareness of pensions.
Conversely one out of seven dismissed gamification as nonsense. "You don't need games to engage members. Just put in a link to that brilliant website that works out compound interest over 20 years, and let the members play with that. It'll rock them back on their heels," said a respondent.
An undecided respondent said: "I have no idea what ‘gamification' means and have no interest in finding out."
Almost half of respondents backed the idea of smaller schemes sharing a chief investment officer, but three in ten rejected the suggestion.
One advocate said: "Cooperatives have been shown to work well across other industries, where efficiencies can be gained in bulk buying and administration - why not in pensions as well?"
Another said it could work provided there were separate mandates for each scheme.
"I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't work with careful forethought," said another commentator. "It makes one wonder why it is not already common amongst the little schemes."
But a critic said: "If your scheme isn't large enough to appoint its own, how can it be large enough to supervise someone with that level of discretion? Safer to go for fiduciary management or a super-consultancy firm."
Another sceptic wondered: "Sounds very much like an insurance-based or bundled scheme to me so where's the appetite for this? Being drummed up by a fund manager I suppose?"
To see the results in full click here.
In this week's Pensions Buzz, we want to know whether you support the ruling that defined benefit (DB) trustees must equalise GMPs in past transfers.
More than £130bn of company funds are tied up in pension schemes specifically due to lower than expected levels of life expectancy improvements over the last decade, according to PwC.
XPS Pensions Group has launched a scam protection checklist to assist trustees in meeting The Pensions Regulator’s (TPR) scam pledge initiative.
This week’s top stories included the rejection of an automatic guidance amendment in the Pension Schemes Bill, while The Pensions Regulator posted a sharp increase in the use of its powers.
The majority of the pensions industry agrees an eventual net-zero target should not be mandated for schemes as part of the Pension Schemes Bill, according to a Professional Pensions poll.