Correct, I'd recommend moving on to another coin that doesn't have the baggage, and I do recommend that when people ask me.
I'm not a fan of the whole idea of masternodes, nor a fan of PoS coins, so the tech has nothing to interest me, but if I were I would clone DRK and relaunch it clean the way we did with Monero.
I wasn't gonna post in this thread until I saw this, as I like both DRK and XMR. The CPU miner that you all released on launch was de-optimized to 100x less than its optimized speed. Either maliciousness, incompetence, or negligence from being in a hurry to get launched. In any way, XMR was NOT a fair launch by any means.
I disagree, and I'll quote the expert on the topic who has nothing whatsoever to do with Monero:
This would be a very reasonable thing to assert if I had anything to do with Monero. I don't. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, none of the people who profited from early optimized Monero mining had anything to do with crippling the code in the first place.
Think of it this way: You step in and inherit a legacy codebase for a promising and interesting new cryptocurrency. You're immediately beset with demands -- fix bugs, release binaries, answer help questions, etc. In retrospect, it turns out that the code you took over had been de-optimized by its original creators. Is that your fault? Of course not. What's the standard that we should hold the Monero developers to? To fix any bugs or deliberate weaknesses as fast as they can after they become aware of it. To get up to speed and review and understand the codebase they inherited as quickly as a reasonable developer can do.
Pretty clear, and like I said, it still didn't affect the total supply
at all, and is off topic. It says a lot that the best response DRK supporters have of their own flaws is to aim criticism at another. It's ineffective and pathetic.