I don't have time to read the entire thread. But one thing strikes me, that I feel I should comment on.
You are talking about an IPO here. The word is right there in the title of the post.
In my opinion (an opinion that is informed by ten years experience as a Security Principal for three different securities broker/dealers) everyone involved (James and everyone who is thinking of investing) needs to understand clearly the definition of the word "security". In this case, the definition we are interested in is the definition that involves investments.
In the United States, the US Supreme Court has ruled (in SEC v. Howey) that a "securities contract" is defined as a contract, transaction, or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or third party.
If you are offering an IPO for SuperNET, you are almost certainly creating a "securities contract".
Let's look at this definition in terms of the issuance of a cryptocurrency. Let's say that the promoters issue a certain number of coins to the company or the development team, and then open up sales to the public. As soon as someone buys those coins from the promoters, with the expectation that the value will go up, you are walking straight into "securities contract" territory. I believe there is very a real possibility that the SEC could (and would) take the position that the developers have offered and sold a security. The regulators would make the case that sale of the coin is a "transaction or scheme" where people are investing money (by buying coins), in a "common enterprise" (the IPO) with the expectation that the value of the coins will go up based on the efforts of the "promoters" (SuperNET and its developers).
All it takes is one dissatisfied purchaser to bring this to the attention of regulators (if they aren't already aware of it). Far from unifying the crypto community, this could easily lead to more scrutiny from the regulators and a black eye for the community. And, frankly, it could even lead to civil or criminal charges.
But wait. What if the developers of the business and coin are incorporated in a jurisdiction outside the United States? Or, what if the business is a Distributed Autonomous Corporation, with no headquarters or jurisdiction anywhere? In either case, if a developer individually, or the "company" as an entity sells to US citizens, it generally needs to comply with US laws. And, I think it is fairly clear that it also doesn't make any difference if the start-up company's coins were purchased in exchange for another cryptocurrency, like Bitcoin, NXT or BBR.
The guys like Ethereum who have done this type of thing successfully have structured their offer very carefully, have given investors lots of disclosures and warnings, and still could be treading on thin ice.
Since Poloniex is a US company, I think they should take a long, hard look at what they are potentially getting themselves into before they start participating in an offering of unregistered securities. I like Poloniex -- and have coins there -- so I hope they have a good attorney.
To any potential investors, I would point out that this (SuperNET IPO) is exactly the type of risky venture that the securities regulations are designed to protect you from.
Please note that I am not taking any position, pro or con, about the technology involved, or about James as a person. I'm just trying to warn about a situation that could be harmful not only to individual investors, but the entire community.
I don't have a lot of time to try to follow this thread, so don't necessarily expect me to reply to the (probably inevitable) crush of angry replies.