You seem to be missing the fact that they are all open source and they are the competition. It doesn't matter what the history is, that's the current state and if you can't compete on the core fundamentals of crypto currencies then you might as well not even try. If this was some other type of product, then sure. But it's fundamentally a crypto currency and it's focus needs to be on that in order for it to truly succeed.
I also don't have a clue why anyone would think others would want to clone Cloak before it has a chance to really get itself going again. Oh sure, there will be some that do it and almost all of them will be scams. But people are more interested in cloning Dash because they see dollars signs in the masternodes. Things like ZCash are the flavor of the day for cloning but the tech is far from being truly usable as a crypto currency due to various performance issues as well as the issue of the trusted setup. Its highly doubtful that any clone will make any real technical advances with those ones.
I will say though, that a crypto currency based on Mimblewimble has the potential to beat every anon coin out there. That's based on what I know of it so far and assumes anyone doing a coin based on it doesn't introduce various forms of centralization or require trust. The truly "scary" part for anon coins should be that some core bitcoin developers are looking at it and doing some work with it.
I don't follow your first paragraph.
The history illustrates how these successful projects (well some are) may not have got there unless they had remained closed source until they had a clear lead. Anoncoin was open source at the time and was the competition to xcoin/darkcoin
For example - dash didn't believe it could not compete with anoncoin and perhaps XC. However had they not remained closed source for a period then anoncoin and others would have immediately cloned away any clear advantage dash had at the start. Evan was shrewd to hold it closed until they had a clear lead.
It all depends really on
1. how revolutionary cloaks enigma is
2. how easy it will be for any copy and paste dev to paste it to their project.
3. the clear benefits of going full open source compared to vetted dev review and analysis.
4. the potential risks of your hardwork being used against you by competition.
I can fully see komodo going past zcash - I see also PIVx going past zcoin in fact it has done so mainly on the basis of them being able to trump dashs model by replacing mixing with zcoins tech .
If zcash and zcoin had been vetted but remained closed source to other devs for a longer period of time I suspect they would not be having their own hardwork used by their competition to extract invesment away from them and would have far larger MC's. I know zcoin had a big problem but still.
If dash had gone open source whilst still small they would have had a much tougher time
If bytecoin wasn't open there would be no monero dominating them.
To learn one must often examine historical events and I think history is a very valuable tool.
Of course everyone can have their own opinion.
We will see if going open source makes any immediate difference to the price and how quickly clones start popping up if the tech is found to useful.
It perhaps will make little difference either way.
Better to spend time implementing features people perceive they want right away.
I notice voting and funding mechanisms are very popular.
Cloak to not have pumped much at all during this bull run is strange I find. Although the dev team is not really that vocal and the thread appears quite dead quite a lot of the time.
Either way their mind seems made up to go open source. Perhaps it may work out in some way. If he tech is good and is cloned and used by a larger more active team with a bigger community then I guess cloak will get the credit in their OP hopefully.
The thing about history, is that we can often use it to justify our point of view but it doesn't mean it's true. I don't view the history of those coins in the same way. While true that history can teach us some lessons, experience typically trumps that.
Anyone that is going to clone a coin in order to become the #1 crypto currency is going to pick the best one. All of them have plenty of flaws so it would almost be a waste of money at this point. So really, anyone cloning some other coin isn't going to be doing it to be the #1 crypto currency, they're going to be doing it for the money making opportunity and will be short lived.
Dash. I don't view it being #1 as being due to it being closed at the start. I see it more as being that no one has truly tried to topple it. Why would they want to. They can already clone it, use things like the "scam" issue, use an IPO, fire up a bunch of masternodes etc etc and make more than enough money. Milk it for as long as they can and then just let it die off. Rinse and repeat. With it's masternodes, Dash doesn't have the tech to be the #1 crypto currency so it's a non starter for anyone serious about becoming that.
Monero. I don't view them as killing of Bytecoin because of it having been open source. Like you said, no one knew about it. They simply didn't have a team behind them that could make it a success. They could have been closed source for a year or two and it wouldn't have mattered. Monero still could have come along and taken over. It's been awhile now so I can't remember but I vaguely remember some sort of controversy or something regarding Bytecoin as well. Boolberry came out at the same time and for awhile was giving Monero a run for their money. It was competing marketcap wise, people were all over the forum hyping it. But where are they now. At the end of the day Monero won purely I believe on the quality of their devs. I've had some in depth technical conversations with them and they know their stuff inside and out and they are dedicated to crypto currency first and foremost. That alone is enough to build a strong community around the coin and instill confidence and loyalty in everyone involved.
I had mentioned experience above. Years ago i worked for a multi billion dollar company who's products are used around the world. While there, I worked with a product manager who was extremely successful at what he did. He would look at competitors products and pick out ones he believed the company could sell and that he could design to be better. And that's exactly what he did multiple times. They were essentially "clones". The tech wasn't superior over all, some aspects were better and some worse. Marketing was on par, sometimes less, sometimes a bit more. Distribution was on par, sometimes worse, sometimes better. But he had a knack for knowing just how to design his versions of the products so they were a far better user experience. Small things were better then in the competitors. Some things were completely done away with (that consumers believed they needed) and replaced but that led to a more enjoyable experience. In every instance his products ended up becoming #1 with the most market share even against companies that had been #1 for years. In his most successful product, we went up against a company probably 50+ times as big. Their distribution was far superior. They could dump far more into marketing. But the product was superior and became #1 and still is to this day. So it doesn't matter if some coin is established or not or how they achieved it. If someone wants to topple them, they can do it with a superior product. That's what experience has taught me and why I say that the history of those coins doesn't matter.
Now here's the thing. Even if Enigma is some sort of revolutionary tech, it doesn't matter because all the user is concerned about is anonymity which they can get in multiple coins. Enigma will only be a real benefit if it provides some other technical benefits. Mimblewimble (assuming flaws aren't found) is revolutionary in it's simplicity and it provides some technical benefits (there are some flaws though). But as I said, it doesn't really matter because they're all just anonymity and in the end it's the user experience that will be more important.
At this point, Cloak has been close source since day 1, something like 3 years now. New team has been working on things for roughly a couple years. If all that time has not been enough for it to have a good following of supporters and "establish" it, then nothing will. Success isn't going to be had by trying to hide things away which means you'll always be viewed as being on the fringe and not a serious crypto currency. It's only going to really have a chance to succeed if it gets out from under it's rock and competes head to head with the leaders.
Anyway, you're absolutely right with at least one thing though. We each have our opinions and only time will tell lol.
