A clearly defined 'industry standard' set of criteria needs to be (read: will eventually be) developed. Something much more significant than measuring the shouting on social media.
We have a sophisticated and very capable semantic web representation as a foundation:
https://github.com/DOACCBut ... in the situation you outline, the difficulty is that those who have the problem aren't those who own the solution. It's a societal issue, not a technical one -- but the technology will be asked to play a part at some point, we think.
Cheers
Graham
having thought about this a bit more:
It comes down to this. Coin users can be anonymous. Mining / Maintaining of the Block chain can be distributed.
For a coin to have / gain lasting value, The Developer Team, meaning the people involved, must be known and well known at that. In short, the buck has to have a tangible stopping point rather than a
community of some sort.
The teams that wins likely won't be the best, but will most certainly make very fewest mistakes along the way.
One could argue that the best way to look at alt coins is as small companies. That may not go over well for some, but that is the reality I see evolving.
The industry has a huge challenge in front of it. At the root, it is called desirability. You can talk about the features and benefits of one coin vs. the other, but.... hey, it is all open source. Which I take to mean: 'Anything you do another can too'
Ultimately the difference is the commitment of the people, not the community, behind it. Now this makes the devs start sounding like a management team with a product that is virtually given away for free.
The winner won't be the best Dev team, it will be the Dev team with that surround themselves with the best marketing team.
BTW, I have no idea who it will be
Still like the idea of Cryptsy merging with Bittrex... if anyone is listening...
Best