Number 4 on the list:

http://www.funtasticus.com/2008/05/20/10-cities-with-the-most-beautiful-women/

BTC-e is based in Bulgaria...so there you go. 

Only 263182 blocks to mine...step aside, fellas.  I got this. 

Doh!

Colombia is in my top 5 for sure, so I can't argue with either of you.

No big deal.  But since I own some DGC, it's important for me to know.  Especially since I'm developing a game site which will implement dgc, along with other cryptocoins.

Hmm.  Interesting perspective.  So the dev already vouching for the listing by one of DGC's 'biggest investors' is fake and it doesn't matter to you.  I see things like honor and integrity don't mean much to you.  Nevertheless, I inquired about the listing on bulgarovo.com.

Only one way to find out for sure.  Just inquire with the listing on bulgarovo.com. 

I beg to differ.  Brazil wins that race.

Ripple received funding from Google.  Consequently, XRP have gone up in value because of the hype.

How will each node be represented in the network?  Is it a dynamic id assigned with each connection to the network?  Is it based on client id?  If so, can I have multiple instances open on one computer?  If not, can I benefit by having many clients open on multiple computers?  Obviously, the algo which randomly chooses a node to cast a vote is important.  But can a node know when it has received a vote to create an EMU?  If so, because it's safe to assume the probability of receiving two (or N) consecutive votes is 'lower' than receiving a new vote, can I benefit somehow by closing my client and reconnecting to the network either with the same client or a different one (this question is related to how nodes will be represented in the network)?  At first glance, given enough bandwidth (Google's 1 Gb/s fiber internet service, for example) and computing power to quickly reconnect with the network, if nodes' identification are dynamic, it seems I can exploit the EMU voting system (and gain more interest as well).  If nodes' id are static, then that makes the network more vulnerable.  Obviously, I'm just hand-waving until I see the actual algo/code.  

EDIT:  Seems like posts were added with similar ideas while I was typing...

I guess that bitcoin, Silk Road black market thing just ain't cutting it anymore, eh? 

...like I said, it would be irresponsible for anyone to let you PLAY with 50% of their computational electricity.  Exploit the inefficiencies with your own capital.  Go ask mommy and daddy for a loan if you're so confident of attaining trading profits.  Why include everyone in your glorious trading operations with your glorious trading team?  Surely you know that regardless of the inefficiencies, the markets always sort themselves out.  And the larger the capital, the quicker the arbitrage opportunity will end.  It's why small/medium sized hedge funds generally outperform large hedge funds, especially when just starting out.  Trust me, the btct.com idea is not a bad idea.  Let your profits/interest payments speak for itself and in time you'll be able to have more successful debt offerings.

No, no such thing will happen, I assure you.  I've seen HFT algorithms in credit markets that would make your head spin.  I've conducted my own statistical arbitrage operations in derivative markets.  The cryptocoin infrastructure is in no way, shape or form at the level of sophistication of corporate stock and debt markets. All you're doing is defining another nasty carbon footprint for the rest of us.  And it would be irresponsible for anyone to let you 'play' with 50% of our computing electricity without proper due diligence.

Both examples are misguided.  Stock owners are entitled to future dividend payments, are protected by central governing authorities to oversee accuracy in accounting methods and abuse of executive power, and have a right to vote and participate in a company's decision making process.  A zenith coin has nothing even similar to the protection of shareholders of company stock.

Freicoin's demurrage forced savers to be spenders even when there is nothing to spend it on.  And this was the funny irony for Freicoin, because adoption/usage is the initial problem all altcoins have to solve.  Freicoin possesses an additional inherent pressure to gain adoption.  Why hold Freicoins and be submitted to demurrage while awaiting merchant adoption to reach some critical mass, especially when there are so many other choices of cryptocoins?  Freicoin was an admirable, but flawed model.

Oh so you plan to use the 50% for your own HFT operations and yet we're supposed to take the published trading records in good faith, right?  This is hilarious.  Here, do yourself a favor, get this trading team of yours together, whip up a trading business model, go to btct.com and file for a debt offering.  Repay your debtors interest/dividend payments via your trading profits.  You'll see this is more viable and your fiduciary duties and obligations will be contractual (though still not legally binding, since btct.com makes it clear everything is virtually a game).  Using a cryptocoin for your HFT ops guarantees nothing for either side.

Your logic is flawed.  According to the canonical example of the Prisoner's Dilemma, both prisoners (miners and devs) will confess (dump their coins) even when it might seem in their best interest to not confess (dump their coins).  The Nash equilibrium is both sides dumping their coins!  There will be no waiting and watching the other side because that will cost them if they do.  As mentioned above by someone else, nothing is stopping you from dumping your coins, no different if it was premined, instamined, or freaking datamined.

This is the third time you've ignored my inquiries into your credentials as a capital manager and the details of who the trading/finance team is.  It is clear there is no trading team.  And it is safe to assume your resume lacks any experience in capital management.  A coin is only as good as its devs and their requisite skills.  So to answer your question as to what value do other altcoins provide, apparently the same value of zenith coin.  As of right now you're just a seven character string asking everyone to assume your the Warren Buffet of the cryptocoin world.  But I thank you for the chuckle...

Yes, lets speak about arbitrage.  Being a former fund manager for over ten years, when you simplify the dynamics of market trading, be it arbitrage or whatever, as a 'basic level of automation,' then I become wary of your business model.  It shows your inexperience, and quite frankly, immaturity and lack of discipline.  Show me your proposed scheme.  Is it strictly lateral arbitrage?  That is, will you exchange zenith coins into BTC then transfer coins to mtgox and sell the BTC into USD?  And then what happens if BTC runs?  You've basically crippled your returns.  And what if you need to purchase BTC and you've purchased at the top of said run and BTC falls?

And again, what are your credentials to even propose that there's a 'basic level of automation' which can enable arbitrage opportunities?  Who's the trading team?  Or are the devs, who are supposed to be working on projects, going to have to spend their time doing something outside their level of expertise?  I can go on and on...

It is clear the model for your coin is ill-advised.

It seems to me 'market making' will be the primary activity, other than development projects, for the 50% of coins.  Yet, I see no finance team to complement the dev team.  You show no credentials or resume, hide behind an avatar like 99.9% of other users on this forum, and somehow we're supposed to be comfortable with the idea your skills as an arbitrageur and capital/finance manager will provide positive ROI for 50% of mined coins?  How in the world is this different than banks using deposits so poorly that once the market turns against them (eg. mortgage market) even slightly, they will need a bail out?  Congrats, you have invented the open source version of this financial nonsense.  Except there is no central governing entity to bail out zenith coin.  It will just fail, leaving a wasteful carbon footprint and nothing more.  This is laughable.  And all transparency will do is allow us to better see you risk assets and, consequently, DESTROY future development projects.  Your 'market making' activities will have the exact opposite effect of creating incentive for the devs.  I repeat, this is laughable.