Let me fix that for you!
People here only talk .

The community has nobody eager or with enough skill to start a major change , nor the support from the other members to implement the drastic changes needed.

Exactly, Quark network is not susceptible to such attacks, we could have 1 PC mining and if the attack occurs we revert back to the last checkpoint and so on. We need hashrate power but its not relevant at this point, what we need more is community involvement not spreading FUD and creation of merge coins etc. We need protocol to improve and we are creating a structure in which we welcome core supporters of Quark to become foundation members with a small yearly involvement from which the dev team will take a large portion, while the rest will go for Quark related projects.

Maybe, but from my experience you do worst when you act quick because you start to get nervous. So lets go through the arguments and our view will be clearer afterwards (i hope

So the Quark only IPO. As I said elsewhere, i can´t see how the companion coin wouldn´t massively undermine Quark, because people would always ask why the heck they should keep Quark if they can have a "better" coin (and still the same community). I only see one way where the IPO is a good solution, that is when a Part of the community wants to move away from the developer. I can´t see this as a "companion" solution. However, if the development perspective appears to be negative , then it may be a good solution to move Quark investors to a somewhat more promising solution.

Take this scenario:

1. We look for a capable team of developers who are looking out for a capable and dedicated community (usually not the case, but as I lined out, the community is one key factor to success and we can provide that)
2. The developer create a Quark based coin (working title: core) that adopts features that are seriously promising (and not only to hype the coin, I am especially thinking of features that allow voting with your coins!) with ~ the amount of coins as Quark + a yearly inflation of say 1% (currently we have no stable inflation, that is seriously confusing)
3. We create an Quark only IPO and sell 1 Core = 1 Quark.
4. However 10% of the acquired amount are saved in a community pot which is used as "community premine" (I talked about this earlier). Unlike "normal" premine this money is administered by treasurers of an elected board (better: smart contracts). This is also the money which we can use to pay the developers on a regular basis (NOT at once).
(optionally 5. Another 40% is stored via smart contract and paid out to shareholders for the next 36 months. This could be a mechanism to reduce prisoners dilemma: People know that there are large shareholders and they might be scared (for good reason?) that those are just waiting for the right time to drop all of their holdings. By "leasing" it back to holders you "store" self-interest and by doing that support trust in the community. (I am not talking about shady concepts like e.g. ECC used [the longer you keep the more you get]. you will get back what you paid in, there is no additional inflation)

I really like this as an alternative in case that there is no development perspective AT ALL. So in my opinion we should seek a critical debate with the developer to level out what is possible and what not with him. If it turns out to be a waste of time then I think this could be our Plan D


Everything I wrote here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=683618.new#new
can be applied

The Quark wallet should be finished in the next few weeks.


The translation of Bitcoin in chinese is known (比特币).  What is the translation for Quark?  That is what we need to fix it.