There is no "DAPS Leader" or central authority since 51% of the coins can't even be acquired. This project is not stronghands, just many of the people from that project were interested in Peepcoin since it was around the same price. We have free association in this industry, even with all the negatives that come with it. I've made no bones about not being associated with stronghands in any way. I'll see what I can do, we will be having a complete shakeup for organization soon. I'd like to know what you think a good idea is on that aspect.


Do we vote as of right now, or should we implement a setup like BeanCore before we do that, to have some slight requirements before being considered an acting member of the development? You have to remember that no matter who the community leader is, I will still be doing what I'm doing behind the scenes to get this coin up to par with other projects and expand the scope. Just because one of the people involved in a project has associations in other things doesn't mean that this project is being ran the same way nor do the same people have final say in decisions. You can quite clearly tell from alot of the specs and details that this isn't going to be setup to enrich anyone, but to try to give the old Peepcoin a chance to thrive.

The development fund will need to be handled by a 4-Out-Of-5 multisignature system ran by voted on community members, most likely Core members. I believe this is the best way outside of the Core organization, but there also obviously needs to be backups to this kind of system. The idea is keeping the premine low enough (1 billion) that it's not "so high" to cause the team to want to dump it and move on, and the emissions fee is setup to encourage actual long term planning as opposed to short term sprints. Do you think it should be negated entirely? I'm willing to work with an idea like that, but then we need guaranteed funding from angel investors to be able to continue this process past the transition in any real way, which is why the dev fund is critical, since outside of a 100k commitment it's hard to get much done on exchanges anymore.

I'll also talk to bcb about some of this stuff. I like him and his attitude, but I do not want people to think in any way that this project is associated with a hyperinflated coin that went on to reserve the coin supply. 1:1 ratio, low premine, reasonable development timelines, this is the creed of the DAPS fork-swap. Honestly? I just want to make Peepcoin holders fabulously successful for having faith and holding onto the old coin and trying something new. We have many independent actors working on many things so I obviously can't tell people what they can and cannot associate with, but I'll try to make my concerns clear on this matter. There's not much else I can do outside of that, though, by virtue of how open source projects like these are structured..

Also; agreed about bitconnect, shame CMC let it sit on the top 10 in coinmarketcap for months and suck in investor money before they got shut down. Those projects are exactly what I am familiar with, and want to help cleanse crypto of by trying to be an example.

On the topic of that "developer" he actually asked me if I wanted to talk to him, but I said no I don't like to associate with developers who premine their coin and hold private auctions for masternodes before they're even live. That is who I am and how my philosophy is. I outright rejected even considering working with someone like that because he obviously does not have the right mindset for what this project wishes to be, and I plan to keep it clean of actors like that. I've been getting offers from coins like rovercoin lately as well, yet another premined masternode auction coin.

This trend is alarming, to say the least. Premine a coin, auction off masternodes, then move to the next project. We will have no such auctions with the dev fund, and most of it will in fact be given away to community members.