You're missing my point. Here's a brief summary in my own words how I'd read this topic, and the previous one:
Icelandic people were victims multiple times due to abusiveness of those above them or in control. The ISK plummeted to this, which affected the normal Icelandic people. Lots of anger and scandals, and the people left with devaluated assets. Auroracoin has the potential to liberate from this.
So okay, yeah, everybody in Iceland going for Auroracoin and breaking their shackles from fiat currency. Yeah. Great, we now have them Icelandic people set free and given them financial freedom. Yeah again. So, then comes a pump and dump group humptydumping along. Toying and hyping a bit with Auroracoin, and then plummet it down to ground. Group happy with profits, "bye-bye auroracoin, was fun" and regular user (read: like the Icelandic inhabitants) left with assets less valuable then before. Again.
^^^ Dev team ever thought of that possibility?
Or, another point of view:
So the ISK is kinda rigged, and was/is subject to them big bullies on top that got away unpunished and left a deflated national currency.
Bad thing, not nice, the ISK fucked over, lots of people unhappy, right?
So, we have had a volatile national coin, left quite deflated, with all kinds of regulations and restrictions imposed and in place. But, this is crypto. And if anything is volatile, AND subject to 'control' and what not, it's crypto!
Whales cannot push national currencies that hard. With crypto's, they can.
Corporate or entities cannot push national currencies that hard. With crypto's, they can.
P&D groups cannot push national currencies that hard. With crypto's, they can.
Etc.
Do you see the point I'm trying to make? Auroracoin is an interesting project, but could also backfire in the end on it's intentions.
Sure, Auroracoin could fail epically.
What are the alternative no-risk ways to replace a national currency?
I still think you guys don't get my point I'm trying to make. I'm trying to make an ethical point, not something else.
I have seen quite some comments non favorable regarding the current Icelandic conditions, spanning back when the bank crisis began. And, that Auroracoin could prove a solution to it. So okay, Auroracoin pops in and gets accepted among the Icelandic population. Hurrah. And then some whale, P&D group or whatever comes along, and messes up Auroracoin pretty bad.
The above situation(s), whom would be held responsible you'd think? *COULD* it be, that in such case, people *might* tend to look that the dev team for *potential* being the ones responsible? Simply, for *introducing* it into Iceland?
Has the dev team *thought* of that? Cuz I can't read anything anywhere back regarding such. I can find enough things like '
we can do better, yeah we can do better, fiat sucks, Auroracoin is better, better than the current system, the current system sucks, etc'.
But what I can't find back, anywhere, is where somebody steps up with a mild display of responsibility *if* things would go sour. Which, they can. Because, this is crypto! Highly volatile!!!
So I'll simplify the question:
Has the dev team, *considered* they *could* be responsible, for plummeting 330k people, *again* into a *potential* financial roller coaster?
Where's the ethics?
With a 2 million marketcap, and the commitment of the devs,.......I mean hell they built an exchange from scratch, I don't see much downside. Now if a whale came along and bought up every Aurora coin pushing the price up to 5 bucks per, then you would need to stay a little more ontop of things. But where it stands right now the worst you would do is break even. Just my 2 c