Seems low for the 1080 Ti on ccminer, I was seeing about 500 Mh/s with minimal setting tweeks on my 1080, I believe I had the power limit turned down to about 150 watts possibly 160 on the card, stock memory clock, and +100 or +150 on the core clock.

 Were you using an older ccminer version perhaps, I was running the trpuvot (sp?) 2.0 version.

Getting Wargaming.net to use GAME would be VERY IMPRESSIVE - I suspect they pad their "active user" claims with accounts that haven't been played for months or even years (like most game companies that have been around for a while do), but we're still looking at a potential multi-million userbase between World of Tanks/Ships/Aircraft and their "lesser" titles.

 Their userbase in the USA is kinda small, but they're HUGE in Europe and seem to be pretty big in a lot of Asia.

 The tpruvot ccminer 2.0 is what I've been using, shows up in theblocksfactory pool hashrate as quite close to the miner reported hashrate if you let it settle down for 10-15 perhaps 20 at most minutes.

I've got stuff running on that test machine that's going to take some time to finish, will go test out the changes to suprnova in an hour or so.

 (edit)
 confirm d= is working but d=0.03 in my testing wasn't giving very many blocks and 30-50% of "rated" hashrate range.
 d=0.02 is working quite a bit better so far, actually seeing a pool-side hashrate over 55 Mh/s (vs miner at 86+) for the first time (current rate has flattened out at a little over 70 MH/s and seems inclined to stay there give or take small normal variations).

 VARDIF however is STILL bouncing up to crazy high values then taking forever to come back down again - no visible change.

 VARDIF will consistantly bounce my miner up to a value in the .1-.12 difficulty range on it's first adjustment that happens something like a minute after the start - which is VERY high for this algo and yields very few shares to work on - then the SECOND adjustment 30 seconds to a minute later consistantly bounces the diff up OVER 0.5 which yields pretty close to ZERO blocks - and then it takes a long time to get back down UNDER 0.1 where a significant number of the shares are at on difficulty.
 When I watch the actual difficulty reported for each share, I see pretty close to none of them at 0.1 or higher, very few at 0.05 or higher, and the bulk of them at under 0.03

 I've had good luck with flypool (zcash.flypool.org).
 

I've had nothing BUT issues out of Poloniex.

 First support ticket I filed took 3 WEEKS (22 days to be picky) to get a reply that completely blew me off AND DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS THE ISSUE I FILED IT OVER - and the issue STILL had not been answered a month after I filed it, by which point I gave up on it and deleted it.

 CONSTANT issues with crazy amounts of lag.

 Way too many trades that don't go through BECAUSE of the damned lag issues

 Then they decided to hang onto a BTC withdrawal for DAYS now after I clicked on the confirm link (it's still "awaiting approval) and they've not even bothered replying to my ticket over that issue for DAYS now.

 The final straw was when their moderator "withasmile" decided to ban me, another user, and WATCHTOWER (one of their mods) in the same banhammer when I asked reasonably politely if they could look at my ticket about a "awaiting approval" issue and escalate it.

 A 1 day ban for NO BLOODY REASON - and apparently it was just because that particular mod is A TOTAL BLOODY INCOMPETANT MORON - on top of the OTHER issues with that exchange have left me with ZERO TRUST in them.


 Polo has lost me as a user forever over all of this BS, and I HIGHLY RECOMMEND avoiding them to EVERYONE.


 I dislike Bittrex, but they are infinitely better than Poloniex is at this point.

 For that matter, BTC-E is a better exchange than Poloniex is at this point - and I HATE BTC-E.

 shhh, we want to keep those under the radar....

 Suprnove's GAME pool is working well for me - can't say the same about their new DB-Groestl pool but ocminer is at least paying attention to my "issues" posts so far, and will hopefully get that one sorted out soon.

 $800 or something like that plus shipping from Baikal directly, though they are reported to be somewhat of a pain to order from.

 No clue on ROI, as I don't do any Quark-based mining at all and never have.

Does Stanford even know CURE and FLDC exist?

 Also, the bulk of those "GPUs mining useless altcoins" would be AMD, and AMD GPUs don't do well at Folding (Vega might change that some, but the RX series isn't competative on a PPD/$ basis much less a PPD/Watt basis).

 

 ASIC for Quark arrived months ago with the Baikal ASIC miner (along with X13/X14/X15/Qubit - but X11 already had ASIC before the Baikal).

 There is a 32-bit (runs on XP) version of an XMR miner around that might work on that old of a card.
 Does well on my GTX 750ti cards on my 2 remaining XP boxes.

 The VARDIF difficulty never settles at a resonable level - it STAYS crazy high for a lot longer than 2-3 minutes, when running multi-card 1070 or even on my single-card 1080 rig - I've seen it STILL being crazy-high and pretty close to ZERO shares being generated after well over an hour of mining.
 It's AFTER the 2-3 minute period that it starts going crazy-high - the first couple of minutes of mining work well THEN the difficulty gets jumped up so high you get pretty close to zero shares.
 It does NOT "settle down some" after 2-3 minutes - if anything, it settles UP way too bloody high to be usable starting at that point.
 Even after an HOUR of mining I was rarely seeing even 50% of my MINER-side hashrate on the pool, more commonly 5%-20%, because the diff was so high no shares were getting generated, and often I'd see 3-5 blocks go by with ZERO shares at all.

 This was all using the same ccminer settings (except pool-specific ones) that I had been using on theblocksfactory's DGB-Groestl pool and getting 90% or better average of "miner hashrate" over a 5+ minute period on the poolside there (I know to expect variation).

 I tried doing the "set difficulty using d=4 as a password" thing, didn't seem to do anything with ANY of the settings I tried on that option - SAME identical behavior when I was testing that idea on my 1080 single rig.
 It also was NOT documented on that pool but I remembered seeing it as an option on at least one of your other pools so I figured I'd try it.


 (Edit)
 Yep, dashboard looks much better now, it actually has information on it!
 8-)


 The difficulty the pool reports on the dashboard page isn't even close the difficulty ccminer is assigning - not sure if that's an issue or if it's more of a "different reporting" type thing.

 d=# fixed difficulty option DEFINITELY is not working on the groestl pool - just tried it again and I'm seeing it do VARDIF difficulty increases.
 VARDIF difficulty actually DOES drop now, though it's slow to do so - as I recall from my earlier testing it would go up but didn't seem to EVER want to go back down again even after 5-10 minutes of getting almost no shares and watching multiple "new block" messages per share.

 It doesn't drop very fast though, and it keeps jumping WAY back up as soon as I start getting more than 1 or 2 shares per block again - pool reported hashrate PEAKED at about 50% of my miner hashrate, and has been DROPPING since about the first 2 minutes - it spent 3-4 minutes getting LESS THAN 3 Mh/sec ON THE POOL on a 85+ Mh at the miner single GTX 1080 rig, ballpark 15 minutes into this test run.
 It seems to be going back up some now, but it's still never seen 50% of miner rate.

 I can't say what exactly is wrong, but VARDIF on this pool is DEFINITELY not working right or even CLOSE to right - my guess is that it's set to aim at a target that is WAY TOO HIGH.

 I'm going to leave the one rig pointed this way overnight just to see if it makes a difference - but after looking at my stats from when I had ALL of my 1070 rigs and the 1080 pointed at this pool, I note that the highest full hour I had (out of about 4 hours I had my machines pointed this way) was around HALF of the "miner-reported" hashrate of all of them combined, which indicates that the VARDIF too high issue does NOT "settle down" at any point.


 (second edit)

 Checked suprnova GAME pool - that's working reasonably well, 5-10% variation from one hour to the next and getting about the same hashrate reported by the pool as I used to see out of LiteCoinPool or LiteGuardian when I was mining Litecoin.

 Hour and a half into the current test run, on DGB-Groestl pool giving me 8 Mh/sec down to ZERO over period covered by the "dashboard", and less than 30 Mh/sec on the "full hour" report in the middle of this run - on an 85+ Mh (miner side) rig that pulls fairly close to that on theblocksfactory.
 VARDIF does NOT "settle in" at any point at a REASONABLE difficulty level when looking at the miner itself as far as I can scroll it back.
 
 Forget this pool 'till the issue(s) get FIXED - VARDIF is definitely BROKEN on this DGB-Groestl pool, going way too high and STAYING there for way too long at a time.

 As a reminder. the PRIMARY FUNCTION of Curecoin - AND MOST OF THE REWARDS - are directed to the folders that ARE THE ENTIRE POINT OF HAVING CURECOIN.

 Without us FOLDERS, THERE WOULD BE NO CURECOIN AND NO REASON FOR IT.


 This is not to say the work done by the miners is useless, but it is not the focus for Curecoin, it is not why Curecoin exists, and there are ways to not NEED the miners at all that Curecoin hasn't chosen to use (as much as I hate bringing up FoldingCoin, they don't use miners - though I don't class their use of that ripoff Counterparty platform as being a better option - nor does GridCoin use miners though I'm not fond of their particular implimentation of Proof of Stake either).

UPS on a mining rig makes pretty much ZERO sense, if your electric is unreliable enough to actually need a UPS you're probably going to have your internet going down anyway - and no UPS can stop THAT.

 The cost of a UPS that can handle anything over about an 850 watt rig get high FAST.

 For example, every consumer-type APC 1500 (and even the professional models for the most part) are rated in the 850-900 WATT range - the "1500" is a VA rating, and ASSUMES no power factor correction, which is quite reasonable for virtually all non-80Plus power supplies ever made for computers - and even the CHEAP stuff by people like Cyberpower tends to be in the $150+ range for a "1500 VA" unit.

 

 That would be skein, not "skei", as the algorithm name.

 Digitalcoin is NOT Digibyte, over and above the ASIC comment already made.

 Qubit is supported by the Baikal ASIC as I recall, so likely not a good choice.
 I do note you are being sensible and ignoring Scrypt and SHA256 options. 8-)

 Best option is to try your card on each and see what kind of hashrate it does then compare to the network hashrate and pick the highest ratio of yours/net.

 one intake + one exhaust = about 1.1 intake OR 1.1 exhaust.

 The ONLY thing having both does is reduce backpressure, which does NOT add significantly to the airflow unless the path between the two is very crowded (like in a S9).


 Running BOTH is a waste when dealing with room-level airflow.


 I've always tried to run intake fans on the EAST side of my place, as that is usually downwind and the rain won't shift directions enough to get to the window as a general rule.
 South is almost as good in most places, but it depends on the prevailing wind direction range where YOU live.

 Second-best option if you have something close to a window (like the neighbor place where I'm at now, or a shed like I had a couple places back) is to run intake on that side, with the "close" stuff breaking the wind.


 I prefer all INTAKE fans so I can filter the air (the rigs might not need it, but I have allergy issues so I *DO*) - but it's not critical if you don't mind the pollen and dust you can use all exhaust instead.

 Fans working correctly?
 It sounds like you might have an airflow issue and are overheating.

Does that thing even have CUDA cores at all?

 If it does, I suspect they're an old enough version you'd be lucky to have ANY mining program work correctly on it, if at all.

 Same process works for ANY miner under Windows.

 It is done via a .BAT file because this is a Windows Environment configuration variable, and you need it set before you try to run the program that needs that variable (setting it WHILE a program is running doesn't work as the program only checks for the variable when the program initiates under normal circumstances).

 It's POSSIBLE to have the program change it and then use it, but it's a TON easier to just put it in a .bat file.