I want to acknowledge that @Skalpell has a valid point about needing to accelerate by getting others involved.

I also agree with him that if open sourced too early, then the momentum can be diluted by copycats. However once a clear lead, economies-of-scale, and ecosystem adoption are achieved, open source is best. There is a hen-egg dilemma to overcome and @Skalpell's point about capital driven momentum is a valid one to consider. Then again, if one isn't concerned about exclusivity and only about the maximization of the idea, then open source is probably best, but this possibly may also cause an idea's development to suffer via fractious power vacuum of competing offerings which may open the door for top-down controlling strongman.

At the moment, I am trying to get off this forum and get back to coding and technical work. And I am trying to get the cobwebs out of my brain from several years of suffering a chronic illness (apparently disseminated TB) which had the symptoms of autoimmune disease and even some of those mimicking multiple sclerosis. So at this moment, I don't YET always have the energy I need to assimilate as much information as I would like to. I am not really rolling yet where I have enough momentum to know where and how to efficiently deploy a large amount of capital.

I think at the nascent stage, a very tightly wound focus is best. I need to focus on the core concepts which are unique in the work I am doing and since only I am intimate with my ideas, it is more efficiently for me to develop from those concepts into something that others could concretely appreciate. For me to try to bring other developers up to speed (i.e personalized hand holding) would be inefficient at this point. Later when those initial concepts have become concrete in some code, then others can autonomously bring themselves up to speed (decentralized competition of open source will filter out who can and who can't without a requirement for my hand holding).

Regarding ICOs, one of the aims of my project that is different from Ethereum is that via the distribution model, I intend (i.e. hope to) provide a way for the derivative "smart contract" (or apps) projects to monetize their business model without creating a useless token and ICO lie. I am attempting to change the entire paradigm to not only a legal but also a viable one. @Skalpell although you make reasonable arguments in some respects, you seem to have a blindspot on the fact that these ICO tokens are completely unrealistic in that the world won't be using 100s of colored coins with a separate coin for each "smart contract" or app. The world will rally around one or at most a few leading units-of-exchange and units-of-account. The ICO model is not viable long-term. It is a FOMO delusion that works for now because speculators haven't yet learned that 100s of tokens isn't going to work.

I don't know if I can achieve this. I go forward step-by-step, just as I did when I thought I had no good health future over the past years of being ill. I just went step-by-step and worked my way towards a solution. In hindsight, if I had known to get a TB test 4.5 years ago, then I would not have lost 4 years. So if there is some analogous insight which could help accelerate my plans now, then I hope I am able to realize it as the recurrent fatigue and cognitive deficiencies clear out (16 more days to go on the 4-drug medication, then 16 more weeks on the 2-drug regimen).