Couple of thoughts, these are just my opinions and not the canon belief of the coin, but I think could spawn some good discussion.

On the thought of removing the Team BiblePay requirement to PoDC.  I understand we would gain more users, but I fear we would alienate our current mining base.  I'm pretty sure without the team requirement it will be harder to show our value to the scientific community.  Sure, we can show how many people get BBP and user BOINC, but we could no longer claim those as our unique users.  While we've not been able to capitalize on the potential PR value of Team BiblePay yet, I think it is there.

We have enough exchanges: With the addition of Cryptobridge and the upcoming addition of Coinexchange, in addition to SouthXchange, QIEX and C-Cex, we have enough markets to provide stability.  Sure, the last two have had some issues, but the first two should provide enough market stability.  The only other exchanges we should be courting would be top 40 exchanges and many of those don't accept paid listings so for all practical purposes, I think we are where we need to be with that.

I do believe we need to seriously consider two moderate changes to the coin.

The first is to remove the Dark Gravity Wave component from the PoDC and Sanctuary payments and keep it solely for the PoBH (heat mining) payments.  This would still protect against an influx of hash rate, but would allow investors to have a more dependable ROI for Sanctuaries.  In the last month I've seen payments range from approximately 3900 to approximately 4600.  This is a variation of nearly 20%, and adds too much complexity to the coin, skews the potential maximum emissions and I believe would be of benefit to change.  It would also make Sanctuaries and PoDC miners get equal rewards, whereas right now, PoDC gets more in a day than the collective sum of winning Sanctuaries.  In short, give the lucky Sanctuary 38.5% of the current block maximum, rather than the DGW Modified value.

The second is put a lower cap on the emission, preventing it from going below 200 BBP per block (before accounting for the budgetary parameters).  This would mean no max supply, but would only add approximately 7% to the current theoretical maximum every 50 years.  This would send a message that 1) we intended to be around more than 50 years and 2) Will still be supporting our charities and having a workable budget.

While we could discuss either of these points further down the line, I think considering them now, while we're still relatively young, would be best.