hey redguy here again. phew never was post so much quoted as this one. Did bring some more bumps to the tread  

That the dev would not give his identity isnt a smart move if you want to attract serious investors but oke I can understand that it matters less to some people.

The premine is totally under the (anonymous) developers control. That will scare of most potential big investors away. So why do it? Why not arrange it with a escrow and set a terms of agreement of how the funds will be released over time after each milestone that has been achieved. If your intentions are pure and you would to like to use the funds for development then what is the problem to do so if this at the same time could give reassurance to potential serious investors that the premine isnt dumped the first time there is some trading volume.

Last point of my rand where why at the end of Q1 when anonymous transactions where meant to be implemented and finished is being discussed if this approach if feasible/desirable at all? This is something you ask yourselve at the beginning right and not when its planned to be finished? So what happened that you came to this conclusion at the end?  

so the dev would not answer my first two questions about identity and transparency, period.. but what about my development question or are those questions also forbidden

Dont get me wrong I originally came here cause I was interested but i'm not gonna trow a lot of btc in a project where these problems ain't addressed maybe couple of btc for the gamble but thats it and I think a lot more people who could invest will stay away for the above reasons, mainly the premine issue