But as I told you on
page 5 of this thread: there are risks, and there are plenty of case studies that support what experimental psychology has taught us decades ago.
...
BUT if you are going to be linking your
experimental cryptocurrency to an already mature and existing IMPORTANT PROJECTS, you may just end up dragging them down along with your project when it fails (either by poor design or by bad implementation or market failure)
You raise a very interesting and possible crucial point, deserving serious consideration.
But the examples referred to, monetary incitements for book-reading and recruiting for social networks, are not directly applicable. The main difference is a cross-fertilization between the use of CureCoin as a currency and its intended mode of distribution. That is: A third party, the common non-mining (or folding..) user is
more inclined to use CureCoin specifically due to it being distributed through donated computer power for medial research, than e.g. Bitcoin and all its current mining-distributed spin-offs.
I can't see any such effect with the examples referred to; there is not an obvious aspect of the incentive scheme itself being a positive, lasting feature. So not only are CureCoin folders getting rich knowing they do charitable work with their GPU's, they can even feel better about the process of parting with their mined CureCoin as this positive aspect should also be in effect indirectly for any 3. party user.
CryptoCoins can in the respect of mode of distribution be considered having different smells. This comparison is absolutely in the favor of CureCoin - is smells of Roses, where 100% blockchain mined Bitcoin/Litecoin/etc. smells of nerd BO (overheated mining rigs) in damp basement dwellings (now I'm harsh...)