The second ability should btw specify that Pin becomes a "a 2/2 Faerie Rogue creature".

It's a common convention to have the plus abilities of this sort to be optional in their targets so that they can be activated even when there aren't any legal targets for them. For example, see Jace, Cunning Castaway and Tamiyo, Field Researcher. My point is that I would change that +1 to "Whenever up to one target creature..." It's also notably that is very similar to aforementioned Jace as it has the exact same starting loyalty, mana cost, as well as a similar +1 loyalty ability. I would address that and change it in some manner to be more distinct by comparison.

Is there some particularly relevant reason as to why the draw on the first ability is optional?

The second ability has a weird redundancy where it becomes a creature with both flying and "can't be blocked", which renders the said flying wholly meaningless. It get that it makes sense from flavor sense for it to have flying it feels mechanically extremely awkward.

Some rules text typos:

"... to an opponent" should be followed by a comma in the first ability. "Faerie" and "Rogue" should be capitalized as they are creature types. The third ability should say "can't be blocked" in the same manner the second ability does. Loyalty activation costs of "0" aren't preceded by a "+" sign (for example, see Lolth, Spider Queen).

I suppose it would be a reasonable approach these days given that ward is a now a keyword choice. Is it necessary though? Dunno.

It looks to be somewhat comparable to cards like Shielding Plax, Spectral Flight, Curator's Ward, Starlit Mantle, Canopy Cover / Alpha Authority, and maybe even Elephant Guide? It's definitely decent but doesn't seem too out of line to me.

Should this be ward instead of hexproof? Granting hexproof permanently is spooky

Also, *camouflaged

First ability could start with "Look at the top card of your library.If it's an Aura card, you may put" etc.

It also probably shouldn't target. You save a lot of text space that way, too, since Auras have special rules that allow them to attach if brought into play this way.

I don't think hybrid in itself is a problem, but when you are having an extremely mana efficient card is, being hybrid in addition to that is a factor. You are not only giving it to one color, but two, and it's actually better than either of those monocolored cards would be since it has a more flexible casting cost - a multicolored deck is more likely to be able to pay the hybrid cost than the monocolored cost.

Now that the cost has been adjusted, it isn't much of a concern at all.

Beats Malevolent Awakening.

I feel the problem here is paying in (parts of a) creature to get yourself a creature at such a low running cost. Invest more mana into the activation and it might balance the fact that you can avoid the card disadvantage with a high toughness creature.

Fair points.
@Tahazzar: Why do you consider hybrid to be a problem?

A full cantrip feels like too much, but there are plenty of lesser options e. g. "Scry 1.", "You may discard a card. If you do, draw a card."

Another option is exchanging the cantrip for an Abrade-variant which makes this less of a sideboard card "Choose one - Shatter; or ~ deals 3 damage to target attacking creature." is an option.

Alternatively put a condition on the card draw "If a noncreature artifact is destroyed this way, draw a card." or anything set-specific.

At least back in the old days, people development tended to be very careful about slapping a cantrip to an effect. It was considered to be worth a full or at least 1.5 mana - even with cards which we consider to be very effective, such as like Elvish Visionary (ie. 1/1 for would be an absolutely horrid card, you can technically get a 1/1 for with Memnite) and Dismiss (which has since only had really bad variants in Bone to Ash and Contradict). Given that, I do consider this to be over the line - even if we ignore it being hybrid which is IMO a factor to consider in itself.