Conversely, this also increases the risk that one of them would scam (as there is more chance one of them may be a scammer). Even if they had 100 000 HYPER each, this might be enough worth ruining a reputation for, before long. Interesting idea but I don't think we should do this personally. I'm going to look into some of the ideas suggested above. Anyone else is welcome to provide feedback / ideas.
Just a few random points:
*Make sure any ambiguity is eliminated from any contracts and/or agreements
*Contracts should only be month to month at max
(in crypto a month is comparable to years - also because of price volatility, whether that volatility is HYPER or BTC and it reduces exposure)
*Multipool - I believe this is a much better solution than any type of supposed "market maker", simply mine other profitable coins and dump them for btc then use that btc to buy up HYPER on the exchange. I am certain the majority of it could be automated (but would need to be randomized regarding the HYPER purchases so as not to negatively influence the market).
*Keep up the great work - turning a coin around after an intentional fud campaign is no easy task.
You sir, are amazing! That was the thing that was ticking me at the back of my head- a MultiPool! I tip my hat to you sir. We most definitely need a MultiPool once the PoW is over. The MultiPool will be able to carve deep holes into the measly sell walls that currently exist, and allow the freedom of more buy support (as well as promote confidence in value). This could work in sync with the market stabilization fund, as the fund will introduce big buy supports, and the MultiPool will get rid of the sell walls.