Additionally some coins cycle through cryptographic hash functions (if my memory serves me right, may also have just been a concept)
Your memory serves you well. There was a coin with 6 different hash functions and I had the distinct impression it was mostly a gimmick, as cycling hash functions doesn't
guarantee that it's more secure, because security is dependent on other factors too.
IIRC, Verge was using 11 different algorithms which it cycled through.
Fun Fact: This actually was the reason attacker could perform multiple 51%+ attacks on it.
Instead of needing to gain more than 50% of the total hashrate, the attacker got 50%+ hashrate of 2 of those algorithms (the ones with the least miners) and manipulated the blocks that the 'next chosen algorithm' was the other one where they controlled the majority of the hashrate.
In addition to that, i believe, they found another flaw which allowed them to create a block each few seconds (instead of 1 per 1-2 minutes, don't remember exactly what their average block time was).
This combined was like the ultimate MCA which could happen to a crypto currency.
And i believe they didn't even needed the hardware for that, but simply rented the necessary hashrate (i am relatively, but not absolute, sure about that).
So, instead of having a coin which is more secure, they weakened the security by cycling through multiple hashing algorithms.
Their
innovative approach to a ASIC-resistant and more secure coin, led them to be a laughingstock for the whole crypto community (without even mentioning that their so-called 'privacy' was basically non-existent).
