Well, the risk of that approach is that every coin they list would be perceived as getting a "Bittrex seal of approval" -- they then become responsible or perceived as responsible for any unforseen/undiscovered scams/implosions in the coins they list. Just saying, dont think there are easy answers here. Ultimately, it's up to people to interrogate these devs and call them out in the threads, with the help of techies who can see through the BS and flyspeck things.
basically this is true.
the community has to protect its own.
but dont forget that elitecoin added a new layer of deceit. that dev was smart enough to add the premine on a wallet upgrade.
he was prepared for a code check.
the scammers are getting smarter.
its better to assume most new coin devs are scamming. unless you know them personally they probably are.
warning new people is the only option this community has right now.
You really nailed it here - the fact that it's basically becoming an arms race and the scams are evolving. Look how elaborate and extended the shocking SilkCoin scam was. No one can guarantee that any coin is scam free without a time-consuming, costly root canal and interrogation of the coin and its devs by a qualified techie without ulterior motives.
There are things to look for. I think a big thing to look for going forward is avoiding coins with anonymous devs. It doesn't offer 100% security, but it substantially reduces risk when someone with a real name and LinkedIn profile puts their real name and their reputation on the line. Those guys are much less likely to be scammers. Basically, scamming is widespread now because it's "cheap." But when the dev's name is attached to it, it becomes a lot more expensive.