Personally, I haven't bothered reading the whitepaper. It's not particularly interesting at this point. It's not what's going to make or break this coin. Whether or not Mindfox comes through is the first thing that matters. Assuming he does, then we can start digging into it, and providing criticism and ensure it gets improved if necessary. Assuming there are no fatal flaws that can't be rectified, then the next thing that will matter is whether nor not anyone puts in sufficient resources into marketing the coin. Frankly, marketing the coin is likely to matter far more than whether or not the anon feature is flawless.

For my part I'm not a security expert. I do have 30+ years of software experience, though, including handling security for billing systems processing millions of dollars. While I can't/won't evaluate the specifics of the cryptography, I'm certainly qualified to evaluate many "higher level" aspects of whether or not the implementation will be fit for purpose. I'm sure there are others here with relevant experience who will also be able to do at least initial assessments. If it passes initial "smell checks", then we can worry about whether there all the details are perfect.

The way I see it, this is an iterative process not least because I don't believe 100% anon is even theoretically possible.  I do believe in "sufficient anon", though, in that for every usage there's a level of anonymity that is "good enough".