Yeah, it was a difficult decision to remove types - I'd gotten myself into a corner trying to tack on dependent types, and it just wasn't happening. My bet is that unlike most of the un{i,}typed languages out there (most of which I'd categorize as lisps and smalltalks), tulip provides tagging and destructuring that allows the programmer to maintain some level of control over the polymorphism. Tulip will panic at runtime for non-total functions, but ideally you'll have the tools necessary to keep the panic as close to the problem as possible.
That is incredibly disingenuous. The only way a Haskell or ML program could be as colossally unsafe as a unityped language program is if the programmer used only one giant sum type for the entire program, and most functions in the program were non-total with respect to that type.
"Unityping" provides no static type safety. It is isomorphic to, and usually a euphemism for, the lack of any static type system.