My beef with 2.0 Hope is mostly about my general dislike of "finite resources spent before the roll to improve chances" regardless of setting/system. But what I do like thematically about after-the-roll is:
1) It gives the player narrative power. They get to decide when their Hope (Faith) makes a difference, not just when it might make a difference.
2) It's 100% clear when it does, not buried in a handful of die.
3) 2.0 has many different ways to add dice to the dice pool, so it makes Hope feel less like the unique thematic underpinning to the setting, and more like just another way to add dice to the pool. (EDIT: And not even the mechanic that necessarily adds the *most* dice. Over the course of an adventure a Useful Item, or even a Pony, might be more impactful.)
Regarding 2) I agree 100% with you, the effect is blurry, my suggestion is using different dice for Hope, so use white for skill, black for hope, red for useful item. After you roll you can narrate differently by reading the impact of each die. This will allow you to see that two 6s from an inspired roll was due to Hope as very much driven by Faith alone.
Regarding point 3) I also agree 100%, but I think it is good for the core Hope rule to be like this, it is much easier to create house rules, or optional rules in a system that is basic. The more complex and differentiated the system is, the more difficult it is to build other rules on it. So, I prefer the RAW to be like 2e, because it allows more room for customization, even making it just like 1e.
I personally don`t agree with 1) because I think the amount o narrative power was similar, the difference is that now it is a power that may be spent to no effect, but the player still has the power to change the narrative (changing a failure into a success), and when Inspired Hope can easily triple or quadruple the chance o success.