It's impossible to review code for all new coins, or at least I assume it would be. Some coins, however... perhaps. At least it could help a little bit.

As for exchanges being in on scams... honestly no idea, but I wouldn't think so necessarily. They make money from fees, so if they see a coin that looks potentially popular or has a high mining rate, they may just grab it immediately. Which of course is a mistake, but they tend to think short-term. Bittrex has sort of killed their old golden goose with running ICOs out there weekly, as another example of short-term thinking. Only way to improve that situation is for investors to simply not invest at that exchange as much, or at least wait for new coins to establish themselves before sinking money into them.

People complain a ton about scams, but in many cases a lot of blame has to go to the investors as well. People throw money at brand new coins with grand promises, don't do any research, go along with hype/positive trolling and obvious scammy behavior -- so long as they think it benefits them. And when it doesn't, they cry scam.

Yeah, but just wondering if I am overlooking something and there is any reason to not have a cap? I mean, some folks feel there is no need for one and exchanges should take about 40% of their monthly payouts. What possible reason is there to choose that?

A number of people here were keen on spending 25 btc or so of the ICO money to basically achieve what could be accomplished by simply not giving exchanges payouts.

The selloff was due to the gambler mentality. If we are honest, everyone has that to a certain degree with most ICOs. They want to see a 2-4x return, quickly, don't get it, then panic. Some folks also gamble with money they can't afford to lose, or need quickly.

Selling for a minor loss I can understand. But I have no idea why people would panic and sell coins at a 50% loss so soon... that I admit is sort of crazy. Some folks sold for substantially less than 50% too (wish I had some buy orders in place then).

As others have stated, the btc price drop + summer months probably are more responsible for the altcoin market's state than scams. Although of course scams aren't exactly helping matters much.

What I'd like to see happen is a respected dev or devs do a code review for new coins.  Unfortunately most devs here, even oldbies, probably wouldn't be considered 'respected' as they have released their own shitcoins in the past. All of the 'trust' programs regarding identity may help somewhat, if run correctly that is, but code reviews probably would be of greater help to people.

Exchanges could be a lot stricter about their own code reviews + limiting new coins, but unless people simply make them pay for their mistakes (meaning not using that exchange as much), it won't matter.

As for forum moderation/limiting coin announcements... don't think it'll happen nor be as effective as people may think.

We'll see how the market goes... if btc goes up a couple of months from now, I expect many alts to follow. Ethereum has an awful lot of btc to cash out though...

But assuming the coin gets on Bittrex too, or other exchanges, do you plan to give their mods a giveaway every month as well? It's like giving gifts to kids... how can you give one kid a gift and not expect the others to put their hand out too?

I'd think a bounty for this month only, due to running the ICO and such, would make sense. I'm not sure why they should get bounties every month though.

Voting-wise, I obviously voted for number 3. I am just curious if I overlooked some benefit to not having a cap. Perhaps some folks vote randomly or don't realize by choosing the first option they will actually get less in the way of payouts. It's sort of rare for people to vote themselves less money.

No-cap/Cap voting is closer than I expected it to be at this point. Although it is a small sample size.

I'm just wondering what benefit is there to not having a cap? Curious if anyone who voted for the first option would mention why they chose to give exchanges a percentage of the payouts?

Ah... well, on the plus side of things, the current delay isn't any fault of the devs or due to code itself. It's bter. Nothing to be done but wait for them.

In reality, I'd sure hope they beefed up their security after their current issues, so wouldn't worry so much about a little delay getting the proper wallets. And for those expecting a rise in price, I don't think it'll happen until the coin is on other exchanges anyway.

I assumed the 10th was the planned date for the wallet? So right now it's 8 days off, not exactly a disaster. Or am I remembering the date incorrectly? I think the lesson learned for other coins in the future should be ... plan more time between planned release date/wallet, don't allow pre-sales trading after the ICO closes, and don't use Bter for ICOs.

I didn't think of that, but I expect it would. At the least, it'd provide some decent options I expect.

Tech is of course important, but I hope folks don't dismiss branding. It's what gets people's attention from the start. Some of the arguments, like it's a fun, semi-childish name, or amex, visa, etc. don't sound like they are related to money, are valid opinions. But a fun, semi-childish name probably isn't working that great for boolberry currently.

When I see the name, I think of this --http://www.comicrelated.com/graphics/boo-berry.jpg

Not something that would work well as a crypto, or something the general public would even consider using as a currency.

If I recall correctly, she was listed on XBC's list of people who owned 1% of the coins. Not sure if it was more than that... perhaps she did marketing at the begining? Not aware of her being on other teams, but she can speak up about that.

And I don't understand how anyone could trust the poloniex troll box... ever. Or any trollbox.

Whether you want to invest or not, up to you. I think a multipool is in the works, so you could mine it that way if you so choose. Having regular mining + ICO is typically a bad combination due to dumpers, hence why POS is probably a better choice.

I question why they would bother. I mean, why not just make a fresh new coin and start the process all over again? Free of any negativity.

I guess they could work on 'something', and hope for a price rise at some point. But I doubt it's the sort of rise most here probably would have in mind... sort of dead to semi-dead prices.

Yeah, sounds good. Bob is also pumping that coin too.

I can't see anything going horribly, horribly wrong at any point.

Zerocoin doesn't actually exist, the devs for that project gave up on it a long time ago. I think there they moved into something called Zerocash? Or something like that... which I believe is more an analytical piece than anything real at the moment.

Any coin that starts off with that zerocoin nonsense gets a red flag immediately.
Bankcoin also had zerocoin anonymity, as did one or two others. Of course it was meaningless.

I've never seen a crypto community so obsessed about a coin they consider a competitor. Most of the time when I checked this thread out for news on Cloak, I instead learned more about Drk. People complaining about Drk trolls (right after cheering Bob for fudding in Drk's thread)... people going on about the price of Drk, such and such instamine, putting up stupid memes and so on. It was completely baffling. And even here in Cloak's death throes, some folks are still bringing up Drk.

I really think the coin would benefit from a name change. I guess some folks here like it, and I've only followed the coin on occasion, but that name... it's hard to take it seriously.

And yes, it may be memorable, but not in a good way. Sort of like if a product didn't use such a ridiculous sounding name, it would have been a big hit. Boolberry sounds like a breakfast cereal to me... Boolberry goes better with Count Chocula, not crypto.

Just my opinion, and I'm sure many here feel differently. But I'd hope at some point rebranding is seriously considered -- just come up with something similar, just not as ridiculous. BooleanNote ... something like that would be better even.

The way things turned out makes me wonder if whales had some inside info as to how the audit was going. Or perhaps just the fact that the audit was being done at all was enough for whales to decide to dump.

Based on the amount of their IPO, Ethereum may not only be the altcoin killer, but bitcoin killer too, at least as far as btc's price goes. It's an awful lot of btc to cash out there...

Seriously, Ethereum isn't even meant as a currency, so whatever affect it has on altcoins most likely would be indirect. Such as people cashing out alts to buy Ether... or Ether killing btc's price, lowering altcoin values. I have no idea how IPO people will make money on Ether though, as not sure who is left to even sell to.

The founder's club benefits will come out of the bounties/giveaway pool, not payouts. Although the name sort of implies it's special goodies for the developers, it's  meant for those who hold 10K or more coin... so regular investors are included too.

It's not a bad idea really. Besides the fact we'd want big holders to hold, it may help get around the issue of some folks selling after signing up for payouts and doing the wallet check ... and buying back in right before. Keeps things more stable.

And smaller investors should get some goodies too, at least based on what was stated:

As a general policy though, I think it's a good idea for the cap. Not everyone is evil, so many may stick to the rules. The devs can also use blockchain analysis and other things to sort of semi-enforce the cap, or at least do so as best they can.

So long as the cap is announced once the dividend thing is set up, it's also not unfair to anyone. There are no huge megawhales right now besides Poloniex (at least based on looking at the rich list currently), so if anyone out there decided to buy up 10-20% of the coins, they'd know the rule beforehand. It'd only be unfair if someone bought up a huge amount of coins expecting full payments.

I'll also add, under the initial ICO rules, a megawhale would only get 1 max share, regardless of number of coins held. So I can't see anyone complaining about a cap, as it's still more than they would have gotten using the old rules.

Well... on one hand, you are right. They bought the coins, so they should get a fair reward.

But, how do we differentiate between an exchange or megawhale? An exchange could just break off a chunk of their holdings and claim they are a regular investor, wanting their 15% of total rewards.

It'd also benefit the coin more if there were less megawhales too, as generally you don't want one person holding too many coins. They become a sword hanging over everyone's heads.