In Unknown Asian/Chinese registry keys, @user27140 described a security concern which @bobince then identified in his answer as a software bug with (apparently) Syncovery. A new-minted user named @Syncovery then posted another answer stating "Thanks for the report! It will be fixed in the next update."
In a comment to @Syncovery's answer, @Xander pointed out that @Syncovery had provided a comment, not an answer, which is where it should have gone - but as a new-minted user, @Syncovery didn't have the reputation required to comment upon anything but his own post.
This seems to me to be less than ideal. @Syncovery did "the right thing" - a problem with his software came to light; he went through the trouble of creating an account (and replacing the icon with what is presumably an accurate picture of himself) so that he could document that the vendor is aware of the problem and will fix it. This puts the information people need - "this will be fixed" - right where they'll find it when they need it (while searching for "What's this crazy Chinese registry key?"). The policy disallowing comments for users without reputation prevented him from doing so properly; he did so in the only way he could.
There's a good reason for requiring reputation for comments, and this is an outlier case. But is there anything that could alleviate this issue? Perhaps allow new users at least one comment before they need to build reputation up? That might permit valuable drive-bys without giving spammers and harassers the ability to paste comments over multiple posts without earning reputation.
How many times has someone found a post here through Google and thought "Gee, I have valuable information to add, this site looks good, but I can't add valuable information until I level up?" Those people are going to go away and not come back. But maybe if they can leave that one comment it's worth it for them to stick around, and end up being more involved.
Just thinkin' out loud. I was going to post this in a comment to @Xander's comment but first I followed his link to where comments are appropriate or not and decided it belonged on Meta instead :)
Also, there is another security issue here - no verification that @Syncovery is actually in any way related to the Syncovery software; no authentication that he's qualified or authorized to speak to it as he did. But that's not an unknown or novel issue.