Agreed, and even more alarming is a complete lack of response from the administration or any representatives of coinexchange.io. They have yet to reply to inquiries about working with us during the swap, or even about my questions regarding staking my on-exchange wallet.

If I were hotter headed I'd call them a scam exchange in public, but I'll wait until they prove me right to do that. We are always working for more exchanges and communities to get involved with, so coinexchange.io is not going to be the final arbiter of this coin's life or where we plan to go with it. I will ensure that. So far the alternative exchanges have been trading with healthy volume for the tier they are, and we appreciate their administrations for adding us and working with us.

We hope to have the dapscoin.com website live tonight, with the whitepaper as it's centerpiece. I personally believe this project and the plans we've discussed will stand on it's own merit and show that we are doing more than simply reviving a coin. I will update when it's actually live, but the night may end up being hectic for me.  

Like I said, I did not condone that action. I'm not a part of that community or the (questionable) decisions it makes. Bitcoinbabys is as much of a member as anyone else, and I've tried to address this issue of "leadersihp" being displayed as a central authority here. For alot of the final say on things it's generally me who says if it seems like a good idea, since I think I have a good head on my shoulders for deciding long term implications of some things. I note your concerns and address them, and even think of some before they're brought up and address them such as the CEO title mishap. I wantthis project to be professional, real, and open.

Opening up the governance and allowing the whole community to decide their own leader is an idea I'm up to, with certain stipulations, obviously. I believe I have enough influence to form these kinds of decisions and help push peepcoin-DAPS to truly equal ownership of governance decisions amongst all. The idea behind the DAPSCore is to try to dovetail with this, to give an incentive structure to the "core" team of technical investors or otherwise. I will think alot about this, since I know how important it is.it's not an easy thing to setup an open organization AND structure it at the same time by virtue of how these things are. Some things will get said that aren't official, or things will be produced that aren't exactly correc ton details. This is why I've gone to the length of streamlining the social media and making sure it holds to certain guidelines. I've made sure NOBODY, nobody on the actual daps core team speaks about price, price predicitons, telling people to buy, etc.

On the topic of price predicitons; In fact, I've chastised our team members before for posting a tweet with a link to just markets, instead of posting a link to information. I do not believe we're here to get people to buy a coin, but to look into our ideas and decide for themselves the value of them. Anyone talking about price isn't considered any way to represent the DAPS development, but I will note that leaders and mods should not talk about price either.

I've yet to see it happen myself, but I put out additional guidelines about the moderators and leaders. Anyone associated with DAPS, moderating communities, etc will not be allowed to discuss price or price predictions in chats without being removed from any responsibilities, no tolerance. I do not accept using a position to pump or shill a coin, no matter what it is. If you find leaders, moderators, etc who do these actions please tell me and I will address it.


And don't get me wrong, I appreciate your honesty and kind words. I just hope that I can help make this project more than simply a dream for the people involved. Also if you wanna check out the whitepaper it's pretty much done, we will be posting it on the website as it's up but I think you'll like it.

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.