Better not touch this one. It's done...
+1
A strong argument could be made either way.
Devil's advocate would point out
1) The coin was made by a public figure with a track record.
More precise might be: This coin is one of hundreds of simple clones and it was
sold from a guy with a shady past.
Neucoin was never something to bring more value to Jango. Jango was a marketing-strategy to get attention and lead ppl into the impression that it would be enough to add value to a totally flawed project. The results show: That's not enough.
Of course. He made a lot of Bitcoins out of the ICO and sold useless dust to those who were too unexperienced and naive. And while the Bitcoins rise in price, Neucoin goes down more with every month at very low volume. It would need a x30 pump just to reach ICO-level again. But there is the monster inflation - plus billions of premine.
4) Sell orders on Bittrex within a short distance of the current bid are massive, roughly 6m up to 191 which is roughly 50% of what is at Bittrex. Is somebody dumping? Or are they squeezing coins out of nervous people? We don't know yet. Volume today was 16btc, far beyond what depth was, and 5.5 btc remain on the buy side. So either a lot of buyers stepped in, or the sellers are inflating the volume.
They don't need to squeeze coins out of nervous people. They make millions of useless coins every day out of staking rewards. And THAT (the economical design) is the biggest error of the whole project and it's impossible to get it solved. The general design is also enough proof for a total lack of competence.
5) It would be very appealing to the person behind the project to see the coin successful, and it would not take much. In business terms it would be a lot cheaper than abandoning it.
It wouldn't take much? It's impossible. I agree that they most likely would want to see it succeed instead of just abandoning it like little Scammer. But they already know that they've made such big mistakes right from the start that there is absolutely no way to get it somewhere that would make sense for anybody.
The problem is: Even if the tech would be better and the economical design wouldn't be such a bad joke and the team would be competent... would it have a chance? I don't believe that. There would be still zero innovation. Neucoin is nothing more like all other little clone-coins. The difference is just: Neucoin made an ICO and promoted it with "big" names. Nothing more.
At the same time there are projects that are really innovative, and even if they shouldn't be successful, they are part of the collective progress and evolution of innovation. They would have value even if they should fail somewhere in future.
Neucoin is nothing but a money grave for all who invested in it. And that was predicted from many users in this thread over a year ago.
)