Although tagged [discussion] the I request seems more like a [feature-request] to me and I downvoted as I see no reason to delay introduction of new communities because of reports of bugs that many users have been unable to reproduce.

"I see that this website lacks some basic features" - which do you mean? You need to keep in mind though that we do not intend to "copy SE", but to develop a next-gen Q&A software. Some features have hence been intentionally omitted. OTOH I don't see, what's missing and really important. You can ask, answer, comment, edit and vote. Flagging and simple curation tools exist. That's what my "shortlist of basic features" would be. Anything missing?

@luap42 For example, related posts are not shown, autocomplete box does not exist in comments, there is not any detailed voting history in users' profiles, a "search bar" is needed in any page, the Help page is still incomplete, ..., comments cannot be flagged, ...

@MathPhysics but that’s not “basic functionality” IMO. They are “nice to have”, but they don’t render the site unusable. Searching for example exists, it just could be implemented better as a search bar in the header.

@luap42 Yes, they do not render the site unusable, but some existing bugs may do that, as I explained in my post.