Wouldn't though us buying up QBK throughout the month help increase market activity and buy pressure? After all many are wanting us to find ways to help increase the market share and price, this one way would be a no brainier, including a multipool. I can understand changing the mini pool part would keep out a lot of investors so yes point taken there. So maybe there can be btc or qbk options for payment without the card. all three pools would require a lot of accounting Making more mini stakes within and would dilute the pools x 10 so I wouldnt personally like that idea. So maybe just keeping all pools as they are but giving btc ad qbk options would not be such a radical change only we add a FOUNDER POOL x5% and take that off the smaller pool to reward the 25 FOUNDER MEMBERS who promise not to dump 10k coins for as long as they wish to retain founder benefits. That would mean up to 250k non dump able coins. This way we are rewarding holders and not dumpers.
As BITDV just stated, the problem with paying just in QBK is that many people would sell it immediately to cash out for BTC. So yep, multipool + devs buying up coins increases buy pressure, but at the same time if you pay out just in QBK, you probably would negate that ... as many would simply turn around and then dump the QBK. Having two options, btc or qbk, could work, although I expect the majority to choose btc.
As for multiple stakes, the problem as discussed earlier in this thread is, if you don't do multiple stakes, or go with a percentage model, people may cheat. And that skype idea really isn't so feasible in my opinion. You also couldn't pay direct into people's wallets without that btc card (requiring an address) if you plan to stop cheaters that way.
As for diluting pools due to multiple shares, I don't think it'd matter as much as you may think. Yes there will be more shares, so each individual share will be worth less. But keep in mind that also means people will have multiple shares. So it should more or less even out. It's like two people splitting $100, each owning 2 shares, so $50/share. If they instead each owned 50 shares, at $2/share, there would be no difference in the end. For the small time investor, perhaps they'd get a bit less, due to spillover from the rich folks now getting extra mini-shares with any leftover they have ... but it's better than requiring 1K to get anything at all. You'd have to crunch the numbers and see how that comes out.
A founder pool would probably be okay, but their money would need to be taken from someone else's pool... which may not go over so well. I'm not necessarily against it, just not sure how others would feel about it. Maybe they could be paid mostly in QBK from the multipool or something like that.