Okay, so the owner of the biggest pool for UTC back in the early days helped start CAI (with several other pool operators, though I'm not sure if any were related to UTC). Unfortunately, the editing and deleting of old posts makes it difficult to "check and investigate better". Stuhlman probably had a bunch of UTC, and he probably cashed out a long time ago as well. Such is life. But changing to 100% PoS is no panacea -- it just makes things messy and ultimately I don't think it's likely to do much other than allow all the GPU miners to quit supporting Ultra. That's fine I suppose -- let all the big bag holders continue to hold and try to figure out ways to get people to invest in UTC. But if you're trying to tell anyone that investing in UTC now is a good idea, I've got some beach front property in CA that I'll sell you for pennies on the dollar as well!
You have some great insight, trogdorjw73. People should listen to you if they want 'smart' investors.
I don't understand your disdain with Scrypt-Jane (more appropriately named scrypt-chacha). I agree on the point you made about the NFactors scaling way too quickly at the beginning and killing momentum from initial investment. But isn't it good now with the NFactor changes far between (I'm thinking more yacoin of course)? I think around 1 year between NFactor changes would be more ideal although I admit pretty arbitrary. VertCoin (4 year between each NFactor change) is apparently going to get hit with ASICs, and I for one can't stand those scammy companies.
I also wouldn't overlook the hybrid POW/POS. I mean as the volume of coins increases over time, the percentage of coins created by POS increases over POW. You become an almost POS only coin when 95% of the coins that enter circulation each day come from POS. I'm too lazy right now to calculate when that would happen, but you get my point.
The ironic thing is that all of this was done to "protect us from the evil ASICs", and yet I'm not even convinced ASICs are the real enemy here. This has become a big business, and that means the small fries (you, me, and anyone else that can't invest millions of dollars) are probably just lucky to have gotten in early enough to have made some good earnings. I don't think we'll actually see a fully functional Scrypt-N ASIC in a time frame that will be profitable for the buyers, but the manufacturers of the ASIC will still make money -- or just scam people and disappear with the coins they're paid. But how do you stop that from happening? Government oversight, laws, regulations, etc. are all things that BTC was trying to avoid early on, yet now we're trending more and more towards having all of them. Oops.
As far as PoS goes, it was basically designed as a way to reduce power requirements while keeping the network secure from a 51% attack, and it does well in that regard. The problem is that it doesn't encourage use of a coin, and there are all sorts of weird things that go on with PoS coins like scaling of the interest rates, or poor coding (cloning of a poorly coded implementation), etc. The rewards are also terribly stingy on many coins (Blackcoin), so if the idea is to have people leave the wallet running 24/7 to support the network, there needs to be a real incentive to do so. This fad that started with BC where it's somehow better to distribute all of the coins in a one week period and then shift to PoS strikes me as a huge money grab as well. At least UTC would have been around for a long time before making the switch, but of course it's going to require a hard fork again and people will get upset about fundamental changes to the design of UTC.
Really, in retrospect (yes, I know: hindsight is always 20/20), UTC was not designed properly. I can say the same of many coins, including BTC and LTC, but what's done is done. Block reward halving is convenient in terms of knowing the block reward for long periods of time, and it doesn't necessarily reward the first miners with the most coins, but slowly scaling down (e.g. sort of like DRK, though it could still be improved) seems better. Fast NF adjustments -- ever -- is just chaotic. As someone that mined a bunch of the SJ coins when they were new, almost every NF change would cause issues on every mining PC I have. The power efficiency issue is also real -- I have given up on Scrypt-N and anything else above NF-10 for that reason, and of course vanilla Scrypt is now in the domain of the Scrypt ASICs. And as for the block times... they're just too short, as I noted already.
So given all of the above, what's the "ideal" new coin? First and foremost, it has to bring something new. If you clone an existing coin and just tweak the parameters a bit and create a new image and name, you've created a coin that's basically just a money grab from the developers (and to an extent the whole cryptocurrency community). You need at least some sort of major new feature. For example, stuff like a built-in exchange system in the wallet would be useful, or at least a way to check the current prices; Stealth Transaction type features are also useful. Most other "additions" are just fooling around trying to pretend to be different. I don't think in-wallet games are useful, as that's just a time sink and people have lives they need to live (e.g. you can't have five different wallets with games running and expect a person to play/mine/whatever all of them at the same time).
If UTC is going to hard fork to PoS, they ought to look at some other fundamental changes. The coin went from what -- 6 seconds to 20 seconds to 30 seconds for the block times? 30 seconds might be okay now, but one minute still seems more reasonable to me, especially given PoS will be more consistent. Now add in something like Stealth Transactions (similar to the new VTC), and a built-in ABE-style block explorer, and the ability to do a VeriSend type of transaction (send BTC via UTC) and we're looking at something useful. At that point, if you can make all of those additions, is it better to fork from UTC or would it be best to just make a new coin? Or does the market really just want some of these features for an existing coin that is already well regarded (BTC, LTC, etc.)?
The coming alt-coin apocalypse is going to be messy, and I'd guess that less than 10% of alt-coins will really be doing anything worthwhile in another year -- and maybe even 5%. It's like a business that expands too rapidly and suddenly has 3000 retail locations, and then they realize they're not getting enough customers at each location and so a few years later they file for bankruptcy and close most of the stores. Cryptocurrencies have done basically that right now, and while not all of the coins were created in such a way as to be deemed "junk copies", there will be some "good" coins that die along with the "bad".
you sir are going on ignore, you have nothing to say other than starting fights, grow up you pathetic little man, some of us are trying to actually have a discussion without being trolled. Yes I have calmed down, yes I have apologised. Try doing the same. Every time you're involved there are nothing but pages of insults and anger, you alone do more damage to UTC than anyone else combined 
I am happy that you cashed out. 
