If that is the plan, then there is nothing wrong with buying features if it is available as a package and have been developed elsewhere already. Compare it to a company that needs software - there is always the decision to code in-house or buy off-the-shelf which comes down to merits and a business decision on a case-by-case basis. Whatever is the most efficient for the company that increases shareholder value is the correct decision. Another example is whether to keep a function in-house or outsource it, which again comes down to a cost-benefit analysis - whatever makes the most business sense. Even if a company outsources 99% of its functions and use 99% off the shelf products, it does not necessarily mean that the company does not know how to set-up such functions themselves. It might just mean that it would have been more costly and take a longer time to do those functions in-house. You have to remember that the alt-coin environment is hostile where investors have a short attention span and FUD is rife from all directions. The quicker features are added the better and has to be taken into account when determining time-to-market. Delivery of features and short and regular time to market including continuous innovation is the number one priority to keep momentum. Certain features can be implemented quickly without re-inventing the wheel, where other features can be developed in-house over longer time periods, especially if it is something new. A lot can be done in a short timeframe with 13.8 BTC. Even if half of that is used to buy off-the-shelf anon with maintenance for example it is fine as that will provide a nice floor for further longer term development. If the devs are sincere and use the BTC wisely, it will function as a bootstrap to catapult the coin quite far very quickly compared to many other coins.

If you can nail the anon features it will skyrocket.

If the timestamp on the block chain is before 06:00 fine. If it is after 06:00 then it does not count even if it is a synch problem as everyone had several days to invest. If you allow one person to invest late you must allow everyone to invest late, whatever the excuse and that will open up a can of worms. Don't start your coin on the wrong foot as this will be an indicator of your integrity going forward for the coin.

That last 1 BTC timestamp is after 06:00 and does not count.

You have to work off the time stamps on the block chain. Any timestamps after 06:00 have to be refunded. Fair is fair.

13.82092461 BTC

Agreed. If the dev team delivers on the roadmap, Trust will become a very big thing in the future.

Nice one.

I find it strange that a bank would not honor its agreement? Perhaps the answer lies in the timing. Everything went south when the buyback pump attempt failed. The "funds" were "frozen" at the time of the "hacking" incident after the failed "guaranteed buyback" when the price did not pump to 2500 after the "buyback" announcement. Co-incidence? Is everything the truth or just a big bluff? You decide. What development have we seen in the last few months - the only I can think of was the initial wallet and then the updated wallet. I am really trying to think of development that took place to give him credit for the money he spent for the last 3 months. Did I miss any tangible development that was delivered or was it all grand talk and promises?

Then don't post things like Pro is dead and that there is no more funds. Coming from a dev it is the worst possible FUD that supports all sorts of other FUD.

That is exactly what I mean by saying alt-coins operate in a hostile environment where 95% are after quick bucks and are greedy. That is a given and a coin has to be able to survive in a hostile environment with lots and lots of FUD. FUD will always be there because that is one way the greedy people manipulate the market price. The best way to deal with FUD is with solid delivery that no-one can dispute. Anything else is open for interpretation and more FUD.

I know the premine was not for funding, that is not what I meant and also not what I said, I know it was for the schools project. With well funded I mean enough alternative funds is required to carry the coin for 6-12 months until real life services can be landed. 3 months of alternative funding is not enough and the risk is that a coin can then run out of steam during the difficult times.

I guess it is time for post mortem then. I can honestly say that PayPro was one of only a few coins that had a plausible real life use and plan. Unfortunately, the only thing that can sink a good plan is if a dev scuttles his own ship. With all its good plans and intentions, PayPro went down because of the following:

- the large pre-mine. I posted way in the beginning that it will hang over the devs head like a sword and be a weight around his ankle hampering progress.
- the silly, silly buy back guarantee for the Monday after Bittrex listing, just as the market was starting to look over the large premine thing and trust was being built. This was probably the biggest blunder and I can only think that it was done with the thought that it would cause a pump to 2500 and when that did not happen...
- the whole "hacking" fiasco started to get out of the buy back guarantee and then...
- the failed coin handover thing sealed the fate
- I believe that there was some bluffing going on behind the scenes and that the dev team relied on the value of the coin for funding instead of having a well funded company to carry the dev work.
- the excessive moderation on the threads. You can never kill a voice through oppression. Rather accept the voices of critique and address the issues and they will go away on their own
- Lack in PR skills

I supported the coin from day one. Luckily I got out without making any losses. It is such a pity as I had very high hopes for PayPro.  This case study supports my theory that a coin can only be a real success if the dev teams have REAL funding behind the scenes before starting the coin that can see them through the hard times to delivery of real life services. The journey to success is difficult because alt-coins operate in hostile environment where 95% just cares to make a quick buck with a 3 weeks max attention span. Any funding that relies on the value of the coin at hand for funding fails 9/10 times. It is very obvious that PayPro relied on the value of the coin and that the failure of the coin to have value early on caused its ultimate demise. That and the regular blunders by the dev "team".

RIP

It is pretty obvious. The signs are right in front of everyone's eyes:

1. Block explorer down
2. Dev not online since 22 Aug
3. PR guy resigned
4. No updates from dev and no feedback
5. Devs did not want to make known who they are

9/10 times this means the dev has disappeared. 9/10 times for a block explorer going down it is because the dev dumped the coins they had. I say 9/10 because there is always the possibility of 1/10 that there could be some obscure legitimate reason like the dev team has been abducted by aliens that do not have internet connection and that the block explorer went down at the same time the aliens by accident pulled the electric wall socket or whatever.

A more plausible explanation of what is going on is that the the team was sincere in the beginning, but had a short time frame in mind and did not think that it is going to take several months for their effort to pay off. They thought that having a tournament would let the price shoot into the sky immediately. Whether their plan was to dump after that or then build further on that we will never know. I think that they do not have the money to continue for some more months building this thing up to something big. They also did not take into account that 95% of the crypto market is into short term profits and do not want to wait around for several months to see returns on their investments. I therefore think 9/10 chance that the devs have bailed because they do not have the appetite to stay around and chances are good that you will see their tracks in the block explorer when it is up and running. There is also a good chance that after month end or 30 days servers they have rented will go down if they do not renew.  It could also be that they bluffed to be sincere but was just having a longer term scam to bail once they got the price >10k. I could be wrong (1/10) but all indicators support this explanation in line with what is happening with almost all alt-coins currently.

Eureka. Finally someone understands the bigger picture. If there was a rating system on this forum I would have given your post 5 stars.

Devs, if you read this can you still follow this advice?

I agree with you. But it has come out now it seems, that the dev team does not have the appetite to work with a low value coin for a extended period of time. It seems they have been bluffing that they have enough funds to carry the dev work until the coin can carry itself or they have funds but simply don't want to wait that long. E-betting is not that difficult, but getting it implemented and adopted would take long in crypto time which few people have the appetite for including it seems the devs. I posted it a few times a couple of pages back that if they struggle. Drop anon and carry on with the e-betting although at a 100-300 sats range for another few months until things can pick up. It is all about if the devs have the funds and the appetite to stick with things through to the end.

Another thing, no-one said true anon is needed. The coins at the top atm have some sort of quasi anon. That was all that is needed to buy some time.

For interest sake. Look at the coins by volume on Bittrex and see if you can find a feature that is common between them. Do you now see why certain recommendation were made to keep volume and price up but was ignored until so late in the process? E-betting dev work could have been financed that way and devs would not have become demotivated (if that is what they have become)

Having said this, it is much easier for devs to make a new coin, bluff through the first month and then dump and bail. Devs can make much more money this way than to do the hard work and see things through to real life implementation and adoption. Devs are just getting better and better at bluffing everyone and that is where a devs real skills are. They can be average devs but highly skilled in social engineering in order to fake stuff to get the public to believe them and for the price to go up. Then they dump and bail. I am not saying this is what min devs did, but this is what most coins seem to be doing.

This is the cancer of alt-coins. Wait let me re-phrase - alt-coins is this cancer.

You are misinformed on some of those points but right on others:

1. Bitcoin is not anonymous.
2. Merchant adoption of Alt-Coins is a cliche and after 4 years not even Bitcoin got it right properly. Bitcoin has shortcomings which is one of the main reasons that alt-coins exist to plug the gaps and improve. Minutes are optimistic for Bitcoin and is one of the reasons why alt-coins were created. Unfortunately alt-coins are 90% scams, 9% devs that start ok but are not committed to see things through (eg. ZS) and 1% that struggle along in a hostile market where the attention span of the average holder is 3 weeks max and short term profit is everyone's motivation and hoping they don't hold the bag when the music stops.
3. The only alt-coins that are reasonably successful are those that have built in anonymous features because there is an instant demand for it. People inherently want to keep their lives private and yes there will be those that misuse the anonymous features for illegal purposes unfortunately.
4. Implementing real life services takes time, 6-12 months IMO. Any coin that wants to do that will have to find ways to fund dev work and keep the coin alive during that period. Whatever the revival plans will have to include ways to keep the coin alive while real life services are chased.

I have an idea that ZS could focus on with the revival. Unfortunately I can only offer advice and strategy to whomever takes this forward as that is what I have time for. I am a thinker and not a do-er. If the decisions are made of names of the people that will take it forward, then I will give the idea to that person to take further as i cannot be a foundation member myself. The trick will be for the marketing and branding to differentiate ZS from the rest on its own unique ladder and to that extent you are correct about merchant adoption, but ZS has to focus on a specific purpose. I also recommend to create a new thread once the revival is up and running and to let this thread and its skeletons be tucked in the crypt where it belongs.

What you are saying is so true.

Everybody hoped that a tournament would make the price rise, but if you really think about it, why would it? It is only the current holders that would take part in the first tournament.  If you want price to rise, you need demand > supply, you need people other than current holders to buy to use. Any other rise in price is pure speculative in nature. Real adoption takes lot of good PR and marketing over a long period (hint hint MineralsPR) and 4, 5, 6 even 10 tournaments may be required to get there.

Perhaps the devs relied too heavily on a high price to fund development. In hindsight, they should have played open cards if they have limited funds because then it would have been important to do anon first to get the higher price to fund development.

I said it somewhere else and I cannot remember where, that there is a high correlation between running a coin and running a company. The only coin that will be really successful is one backed by a real company with lots of money to fund development right through to implementation and adoption, just like product development. The alt-coin scene is full of wannabe devs that bluff and make as if they have lots of money, but behind the scenes they are either in it to dump quickly to make a quick buck and run, or they fake it and make as if they are big shots with lots of money and if they cannot get the price up quickly they bail. Where are the devs that really care and really want to deliver a quality product over a longer period?

There might be exceptions like Bitcoin, but there is just one Bitcoin, just like there was one Woodstock with lots of attempted failed clones.

Unless proven otherwise by a coin, at this point everything seems to support the notion that the alt-coin scene is just one big fake and scam with a few people making some quick bucks and the rest lose their money and sit with big worthless bags.

IMO we are about 8 months down the line of when the altcoin wave started. Furthermore, no coin has yet really gone all the way to implement real life services that were adopted. Explanations for this are:

1. No suitable and viable real life services have been identified
2. Dev teams have not had enough motivation, commitment and support to see things through for at least 12 months and be willing to wait for the rewards later on.
3. The altcoin market does not care about real life services and just care about the short term profits

In the case of Minerals point 1 is not an issue because the Minerals real life service is viable. Point 3 has been proven over and over again that all coins have to operate in this environment. Point 2 is the problem. As long as a dev team is committed and has the financial support to see things through a coin can be successful. A coin is alive as long as there is a commited and funded dev team as well as the required volumes to keep a listing. At this point the Min community only has what PR said to assess this. It would be good if the dev team can make a first hand announcement one way or the other. IMO it is possible for Min to be successful if the dev team stays committed. If they bail then it means they support point 3 above and Min becomes another real example supporting the following statement:

To make money in alt coins, wait for a new coin, mine the crap out of ot, wait for an exchange listing, dump on the up and then move on to the next coin. Stuff long term, stuff principles, stuff the cause and hope and pray that you are not the bag holder when the music stops.

This statement currently embodies the altcoin market, unless the community changes their attitude and drive force. The Min dev tem has the opportunity to change this, unless they also believe the above statement.

If the statement I made is not changed, i am afraid that the concept of altcoins will die, and possibly the bigger crypto as well.

It looks like Minerals is struggling with the exact same issue where most other coins are failing and that is to have the financial support to carry the coin through to implementation and adoption of real life services. That was the only reason anon was recommended. If the devs got anon right quickly they would have been able to carry on with e-betting development without losing momentum and by using the proceeds of selling their own coins for funding the project to completion.

Crypto needs a mindshift from wanting instant gratification to taking a 12 month view. E-betting implementation and adoption will take at least 12 months and this should also be in the planning for the project.  The project and community must plan for this to carry the coping for at least 12 months. If things happen quicker then it is good. If you take a 12 month view it is still early days even for getting anon right. If the dev team have alternative funding then drop the anon and carry on with e-betting.

The price of the coin in the Min context will rise under one of 2 conditions:
1. E-betting works and is adopted widely ouside of the current holders
2. Min can be used by someone else for something else, for example using it to keep other tx private

With option 1 alternative funding have to be found to keep the coin going and the price will remain between 100-133 sats for at least 6 months. The devs and community also need to keep a trading olume avg of 0.1BTC to not be delisted during this time. This can be funded artificially. With option 2 the price might go to 10k, but will take up e-betting dev time but the devs might be able to fund the dev work from coins and the market then also has a bigger chance of maintaining 0.1BTC avg volume. Both options are viabl.e but just need different management strategies.

That is the decision that has to be made.