Coin Revival Foundation! Let's get altcoins to the next level!

[Jonesd]

Main thread here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=576714.0;topicseen

Coin Revival Foundation



I have been in altcoins for a while now and it really bothers me that some devs just drop coins
and get rid of their responsibility and drop coins to let them die.

This is bad for a couple of reasons:
1. Lot of mining time was for nothing
2. People bought these coins on exchanges and now they're worthless.
3. Altcoins are seen as shady

Opportunity:
The communities can be quite strong, but nobody to lead them and keep the coin updated.

Solution:
A foundation that commits to reviving coins that have good foundations, but lazy devs. This is very harmful for the future of altcoins

What the foundation does:
1. Create new bitcointalk where the foundation is the Dev.
2. Create new github source that can be updated to be ad up-to-date as possible
3. Vote for new coins on bitcointalk and pick a new revival coin once a month
4. Keep track on old revival coins and pick specific forum members to run the comms in a certain topic.
5. Hold an election for the leaders of the foundation once a quarter.

What the foundation needs:
- Technical people
- Comms people
- Marketing people
- Nice people

If you like this idea, please respond below. When the idea is picked up, I will hold an election in a poll to pick the first couple of members. You can nominate yourself below and tell a bit about what you would like to contribute.

Coins of interest
66Coin +2
Boschicoin
Graphene
KarmaKoin
Leafcoin
ParticleCoin
Radioactivecoin
Rapidcoin
Quarkbar +3
Qubitcoin +9
Thorcoin


Interested in joining
Technical Board
mammix2

Communications Board
JonesD

[1714818218]

1714818218

[1714818218]

1714818218

[Jonesd]

This would also get coin survival out of the hands of speculative whales, but would create a combined effort.

[sebastien1234]

It's an interesting concept, however my doubts lie in the fact that it typically is not an issue with the Dev's abandoning it, an opensource project can be updated by anyone in the community, if a community is large enough because the coin attracted enough people due to it's innovations/marketing place, it will be taken over by  someone to ensure it's survival.. It's the survival of the fittest coin!

[Jonesd]

It's an interesting concept, however my doubts lie in the fact that it typically is not an issue with the Dev's abandoning it, an opensource project can be updated by anyone in the community, if a community is large enough because the coin attracted enough people due to it's innovations/marketing place, it will be taken over by  someone to ensure it's survival.. It's the survival of the fittest coin!

Wouldn't it be great to get a lot of people together and let the coins survive due to strength of concept and not the randomness of the coin?

I moved the main topic here, btw: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=576714.msg6294074#msg6294074

[sebastien1234]

It's an interesting concept, however my doubts lie in the fact that it typically is not an issue with the Dev's abandoning it, an opensource project can be updated by anyone in the community, if a community is large enough because the coin attracted enough people due to it's innovations/marketing place, it will be taken over by  someone to ensure it's survival.. It's the survival of the fittest coin!

Wouldn't it be great to get a lot of people together and let the coins survive due to strength of concept and not the randomness of the coin?

I moved the main topic here, btw: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=576714.msg6294074#msg6294074

Indeed, but when you are talking about strenght of the concept, if it is really a strong concept, the community will take over on it's own and take over if it gets abandoned. Taking over a coin is hard work, being in the KittehCoin team myself, I can tell you it's hard work and the community expects a lot from you with no compensation at all, nowadays for a coin to be successful from a dev team perspective, pre-mine and IPO is a necessity, you need funds to run a project like that and unless you are a bunch of people that are rich and have all the time in the world, it's going to be extremely challenging. Just my two cents, honestly, I think it's a good gesture and all and who knows it may work out, but there's so much competition right now that it's hard to deal with something that has already had bad press.

[Jonesd]

It's an interesting concept, however my doubts lie in the fact that it typically is not an issue with the Dev's abandoning it, an opensource project can be updated by anyone in the community, if a community is large enough because the coin attracted enough people due to it's innovations/marketing place, it will be taken over by  someone to ensure it's survival.. It's the survival of the fittest coin!

Wouldn't it be great to get a lot of people together and let the coins survive due to strength of concept and not the randomness of the coin?

I moved the main topic here, btw: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=576714.msg6294074#msg6294074

Indeed, but when you are talking about strenght of the concept, if it is really a strong concept, the community will take over on it's own and take over if it gets abandoned. Taking over a coin is hard work, being in the KittehCoin team myself, I can tell you it's hard work and the community expects a lot from you with no compensation at all, nowadays for a coin to be successful from a dev team perspective, pre-mine and IPO is a necessity, you need funds to run a project like that and unless you are a bunch of people that are rich and have all the time in the world, it's going to be extremely challenging. Just my two cents, honestly, I think it's a good gesture and all and who knows it may work out, but there's so much competition right now that it's hard to deal with something that has already had bad press.

Thanks for your input

Wouldn't it make sense to combine your team with other teams in an organization and spread the workload? For expertise knowledge you can simply get somebody from the fund instead of wasting many hours looking for somebody.

From a money point of view, we could also have a combined fund that invests in these upcoming coins and uses the profits to pay for the costs and give all the contributors compensation for their effort. Next to this, the best thing is to keep it non-profit, to avoid legal problems.

Would you guys be interested in contributing a bit to the foundation? I will add this conversation to the main topic,https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=576714.msg6319111#msg6319111 , so it would be nice if you could respond there

[sebastien1234]

It's an interesting concept, however my doubts lie in the fact that it typically is not an issue with the Dev's abandoning it, an opensource project can be updated by anyone in the community, if a community is large enough because the coin attracted enough people due to it's innovations/marketing place, it will be taken over by  someone to ensure it's survival.. It's the survival of the fittest coin!

Wouldn't it be great to get a lot of people together and let the coins survive due to strength of concept and not the randomness of the coin?

I moved the main topic here, btw: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=576714.msg6294074#msg6294074

Indeed, but when you are talking about strenght of the concept, if it is really a strong concept, the community will take over on it's own and take over if it gets abandoned. Taking over a coin is hard work, being in the KittehCoin team myself, I can tell you it's hard work and the community expects a lot from you with no compensation at all, nowadays for a coin to be successful from a dev team perspective, pre-mine and IPO is a necessity, you need funds to run a project like that and unless you are a bunch of people that are rich and have all the time in the world, it's going to be extremely challenging. Just my two cents, honestly, I think it's a good gesture and all and who knows it may work out, but there's so much competition right now that it's hard to deal with something that has already had bad press.

Thanks for your input

Wouldn't it make sense to combine your team with other teams in an organization and spread the workload? For expertise knowledge you can simply get somebody from the fund instead of wasting many hours looking for somebody.

From a money point of view, we could also have a combined fund that invests in these upcoming coins and uses the profits to pay for the costs and give all the contributors compensation for their effort. Next to this, the best thing is to keep it non-profit, to avoid legal problems.

Would you guys be interested in contributing a bit to the foundation? I will add this conversation to the main topic,https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=576714.msg6319111#msg6319111 , so it would be nice if you could respond there

It's interesting for sure, however if you start managing several coins the exact same way then I think (may be wrong) those coins will all begin looking the same, not much will differentiate them from each other. You might be able to pull it off by reserving yourself to having no more than one of each kind of coin; sha-256, scrypt, scrypt-n, etc; at least you'll attract different miners. Best of luck!

[paulsonnumismatics]

My opinion: Your effort and concern is genuine, but i dont find sense into reviving scam/abandoned/outdated altcoins other than some financial gain, which is clearly against the spirit you propose.
If you gather that kind of people, you will do a lot more joining and supporting existing coins with special atributes and an established base that maybe is just lacking a bit of new blood.
I mean, let the natural selection select...
My 2 litoshis,

[hellscabane]

My opinion: Your effort and concern is genuine, but i dont find sense into reviving scam/abandoned/outdated altcoins other than some financial gain, which is clearly against the spirit you propose.
If you gather that kind of people, you will do a lot more joining and supporting existing coins with special atributes and an established base that maybe is just lacking a bit of new blood.
I mean, let the natural selection select...
My 2 litoshis,

I agree with this sentiment. The main purpose is financial gain (not saying that's "wrong") which kinda is pointless. Why not just take the hit of the loss and use the experience to make a better judgment on the next coin?

[Jonesd]

It's an interesting concept, however my doubts lie in the fact that it typically is not an issue with the Dev's abandoning it, an opensource project can be updated by anyone in the community, if a community is large enough because the coin attracted enough people due to it's innovations/marketing place, it will be taken over by  someone to ensure it's survival.. It's the survival of the fittest coin!

Wouldn't it be great to get a lot of people together and let the coins survive due to strength of concept and not the randomness of the coin?

I moved the main topic here, btw: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=576714.msg6294074#msg6294074

Indeed, but when you are talking about strenght of the concept, if it is really a strong concept, the community will take over on it's own and take over if it gets abandoned. Taking over a coin is hard work, being in the KittehCoin team myself, I can tell you it's hard work and the community expects a lot from you with no compensation at all, nowadays for a coin to be successful from a dev team perspective, pre-mine and IPO is a necessity, you need funds to run a project like that and unless you are a bunch of people that are rich and have all the time in the world, it's going to be extremely challenging. Just my two cents, honestly, I think it's a good gesture and all and who knows it may work out, but there's so much competition right now that it's hard to deal with something that has already had bad press.

Thanks for your input

Wouldn't it make sense to combine your team with other teams in an organization and spread the workload? For expertise knowledge you can simply get somebody from the fund instead of wasting many hours looking for somebody.

From a money point of view, we could also have a combined fund that invests in these upcoming coins and uses the profits to pay for the costs and give all the contributors compensation for their effort. Next to this, the best thing is to keep it non-profit, to avoid legal problems.

Would you guys be interested in contributing a bit to the foundation? I will add this conversation to the main topic,https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=576714.msg6319111#msg6319111 , so it would be nice if you could respond there

It's interesting for sure, however if you start managing several coins the exact same way then I think (may be wrong) those coins will all begin looking the same, not much will differentiate them from each other. You might be able to pull it off by reserving yourself to having no more than one of each kind of coin; sha-256, scrypt, scrypt-n, etc; at least you'll attract different miners. Best of luck!

That makes sense!

[Jonesd]

My opinion: Your effort and concern is genuine, but i dont find sense into reviving scam/abandoned/outdated altcoins other than some financial gain, which is clearly against the spirit you propose.
If you gather that kind of people, you will do a lot more joining and supporting existing coins with special atributes and an established base that maybe is just lacking a bit of new blood.
I mean, let the natural selection select...
My 2 litoshis,

I agree with this sentiment. The main purpose is financial gain (not saying that's "wrong") which kinda is pointless. Why not just take the hit of the loss and use the experience to make a better judgment on the next coin?

The purpose of the foundation would not be financial gain, but to strengthen altcoins in general. Coins are made to be decentralized, but with closed off development accounts to further the coin, the community needs control and ownership of the code.

[hellscabane]

My opinion: Your effort and concern is genuine, but i dont find sense into reviving scam/abandoned/outdated altcoins other than some financial gain, which is clearly against the spirit you propose.
If you gather that kind of people, you will do a lot more joining and supporting existing coins with special atributes and an established base that maybe is just lacking a bit of new blood.
I mean, let the natural selection select...
My 2 litoshis,

I agree with this sentiment. The main purpose is financial gain (not saying that's "wrong") which kinda is pointless. Why not just take the hit of the loss and use the experience to make a better judgment on the next coin?

The purpose of the foundation would not be financial gain, but to strengthen altcoins in general. Coins are made to be decentralized, but with closed off development accounts to further the coin, the community needs control and ownership of the code.

If you strengthen too many coins that pretty much have nothing particularly unique to them doesn't it just dilute the effort? Why not use the community you gather to develop a coin that is already strong and make it stronger? You say that this isn't about money, but in your first post you talk about people who are left as bagholders (both with mining and buying from exchanges); this implicitly holds that the purpose of this is to further the financial strength of those coins so that they are no longer left as bagholders. In other words, financial "gain" for the holders of those coins.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a nice sentiment, but I think those efforts could be put to better use. If a coin is "dying" there may be reasons for it, even if they have a "solid" foundation.

[Jonesd]

My opinion: Your effort and concern is genuine, but i dont find sense into reviving scam/abandoned/outdated altcoins other than some financial gain, which is clearly against the spirit you propose.
If you gather that kind of people, you will do a lot more joining and supporting existing coins with special atributes and an established base that maybe is just lacking a bit of new blood.
I mean, let the natural selection select...
My 2 litoshis,

I agree with this sentiment. The main purpose is financial gain (not saying that's "wrong") which kinda is pointless. Why not just take the hit of the loss and use the experience to make a better judgment on the next coin?

The purpose of the foundation would not be financial gain, but to strengthen altcoins in general. Coins are made to be decentralized, but with closed off development accounts to further the coin, the community needs control and ownership of the code.

If you strengthen too many coins that pretty much have nothing particularly unique to them doesn't it just dilute the effort? Why not use the community you gather to develop a coin that is already strong and make it stronger? You say that this isn't about money, but in your first post you talk about people who are left as bagholders (both with mining and buying from exchanges); this implicitly holds that the purpose of this is to further the financial strength of those coins so that they are no longer left as bagholders. In other words, financial "gain" for the holders of those coins.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a nice sentiment, but I think those efforts could be put to better use. If a coin is "dying" there may be reasons for it, even if they have a "solid" foundation.

Financial gain is kinda hard to ignore in this case, since we're talking about money.

Using the coin as a way to start a new coin is not such a bad idea, actually! In that case we could use different kinds of expertises to create the best coin possible, without having a premine or a single person that controls everything.

[Omega6]

This is a great idea.

I will help to revive the forgotten "real" Communitycoin as I don't think many are aware that the current one getting attention is not the original one (Did the Dev's ever mention this?) which is not very fair on the original Communitycoin miners who invested their time and money on it.

I have no interest in the original or the rebooted version, my interest in only in Crypto-Currencies being fair and honest, which includes what I created and might in the distant future depending on how certain trends play out.

No currency should be remade with a new blockchain, they should only be revived and updated, that way miners of older coins who might have quite a few stuffed away in an old wallet somewhere lose out.

No one would reboot for instance, Liquidcoin with a fresh blockchain, how unfair would that be, it would just need to be revived and the code updated so it didn't have a fixed difficulty.

Sometimes people involved with Cryptographic's tend to stay out of the limelight for various reasons for a very long time but quietly listening, learning the trends and following the outcomes.

[Jonesd]

This is a great idea.

I will help to revive the forgotten "real" Communitycoin as I don't think many are aware that the current one getting attention is not the original one (Did the Dev's ever mention this?) which is not very fair on the original Communitycoin miners who invested their time and money on it.

I have no interest in the original or the rebooted version, my interest in only in Crypto-Currencies being fair and honest, which includes what I created and might in the distant future depending on how certain trends play out.

No currency should be remade with a new blockchain, they should only be revived and updated, that way miners of older coins who might have quite a few stuffed away in an old wallet somewhere lose out.

No one would reboot for instance, Liquidcoin with a fresh blockchain, how unfair would that be, it would just need to be revived and the code updated so it didn't have a fixed difficulty.

Sometimes people involved with Cryptographic's tend to stay out of the limelight for various reasons for a very long time but quietly listening, learning the trends and following the outcomes.

These kind of strange things make it hard to support a coin. I really like the idea of getting some talented people together and create a new stronger coin.

This topic is faster developing here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=576714.new#new
Would be great if you could join us in that thread!

[mammix2]

It's an interesting concept, however my doubts lie in the fact that it typically is not an issue with the Dev's abandoning it, an opensource project can be updated by anyone in the community, if a community is large enough because the coin attracted enough people due to it's innovations/marketing place, it will be taken over by  someone to ensure it's survival.. It's the survival of the fittest coin!

Wouldn't it be great to get a lot of people together and let the coins survive due to strength of concept and not the randomness of the coin?

I moved the main topic here, btw: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=576714.msg6294074#msg6294074

Indeed, but when you are talking about strenght of the concept, if it is really a strong concept, the community will take over on it's own and take over if it gets abandoned. Taking over a coin is hard work, being in the KittehCoin team myself, I can tell you it's hard work and the community expects a lot from you with no compensation at all, nowadays for a coin to be successful from a dev team perspective, pre-mine and IPO is a necessity, you need funds to run a project like that and unless you are a bunch of people that are rich and have all the time in the world, it's going to be extremely challenging. Just my two cents, honestly, I think it's a good gesture and all and who knows it may work out, but there's so much competition right now that it's hard to deal with something that has already had bad press.

Well said!