Here's what I see
I have experience working on rockets. Hence my nickname.
There was continuous venting coming from the vehicle. That's really odd. Once the engines light, there shouldn't be a need for any system to vent. If the stated problem of low header tank pressure was accurate, I have to wonder if the fuel header vented to release pressure while it not being used and the valve froze open. That's not an uncommon issue especially in humid environments. It's also a rookie mistake.
The staging of the engines as they were shut down during flight was very violent. One problem that took time to resolve on the Saturn V was understanding turbulence with more than one engine operating. I got to visit the test stand at Edwards Air Force base where they worked on the F1's. Couldn't take photos, darnit. Big discontinuities can create instabilities. I understand that having an unlit engine directly next to one operating is a problem, but what happened on SN8 was more violent than seems necessary.
Fuel/oxidizer slosh is a big problem. It can cause pogo'ing and if an outlet is uncovered, even for an instant, a turbopump can explode or the engine can go lean and burn through. The pitch over was very abrupt and really close to ignition of the engines for landing. That didn't leave any time for settling. I'm surprised that they didn't use "waffle" grids to have the rocket right itself mostly through aerodynamics and much further up on the same way as the F9. They have this technology. It would mean getting mostly vertical and decelerating so fuel and oxidizer would be at the bottom of the tanks where it needs to be.
The engine gimbaling was rough. It's easily seen from the video that there were times when two engines where they were moving in opposite directions. WTH? Right before landing it can be seen in the exhaust. If all of the engines are coordinated, it takes smaller movements to correct the flight. The computing power goes way down too.
This is not a new company learning to crawl here. They have another vehicle class that has gone some time now without exploding. I'm very surprised that the FAA is letting them fly with the CEO stating he gives a mission a 67% chance of failure. The vehicle has more than enough Delta V to get to South Padre Island, Port Isabel or Brownsville easily enough if it does something wrong and that's the FAA's concern, uninvolved public. Is somebody checking that the Range Safety Package is armed?
I'm sure SpaceX will be able to raise another couple of billion again this year.