Whatever changes are to be made have got to be extremely well thought out, as in "white paper" stuff. Defining the end user's needs to be met, deciding on available technology, answering the how's, why's and whether it's worth it, etc. of each possibility, have all got to be clearly spelled out. The worst thing you can do is to invest time and money into something that you end up changing (or throwing away - or worse yet, that gets thrown out with you and the bathwater by end users) later on. It's also nice to have that "road map" for the "average" person. I agree that the discussion needs to take place and this might just be as good a place as any for an open discussion about all initial ideas that everyone has to put forward. Rest assured that many a nut will come around to try and mess with people's minds, and that is another of many good reasons why we should plan on a calm, cool, collected and unhurried process if what we want is something that really is well thought out and thoroughly designed. Certainly not a task to be taken lightly or whimsically, rather something that the eventual finished product merits. Mission statements are basic helpful aspects of long term design and planning, for example, which in and of themselves can take time.
I would say that what is most important for me is first and foremost always staying as loyal as possible to the original ethos, which is that of a widely distributed decentralized cryptographic digital currency, the stronger, the better. That, in my opinion, is key to success given that its very design was to fulfill that precise end and meet the monetary security needs of the end user for whom it was designed. Originally it was to protect people's wealth from centralized and controlled fiat depreciation. What's the purpose and how do we best achieve it? That's my central question.
I think everything opens up from that fundamental starting point. Everything in between both ends of the spectrum is then on the table, with one extreme being something more like a vehicle for long term store of wealth, and the other being the idea that it should be something to be used to buy coffee at Starbucks . . . and everything in between, as I said. Different technologies might be more suitable for some designs than others. There's certainly a lot to be considered. It would also be nice to try and get the opinions of larger and longer term holders to the degree that that might be reliably possible.
Nevertheless, I think the immutable foundation from which to build is
a widely distributed decentralized secure cryptographic digital currency that really is tried and true secure. That's my 2 cents on where we should begin. Spare me Ethereum hackable innovations. No sir. I'll let others play with testing as I prefer to use the stable version. I want "Known Good". And I think that when it comes to making sure their money is safe, that's exactly what the majority of people want. I think that being able to buy coffee at Starbucks comes in a distant 2nd, or 3rd, or 4th, or 5th, way down on the priority list, and it's a niche at that. (Nobody's going to have all the market - at least not for many years anyway - and all the big survivors are going to fill niches). You can't be everything to everybody, can you? Realistically thinking? And to throw caution to the wind in an attempt to do so? I think it's best to stay with what you do better than anyone else, and in this case I think that means being the best storage of wealth, first and foremost, and then build on that.
Anyhow, I think you've got a great idea there to start talking about what can be done to revive Quark, and to do my part to help get the discussion going, I hereby present these very humble opinions on what I think is the fundamental basis from which to work.
unfortunately it happened right at the peak of 30 cents, but who could predict the ending result? I remember that Bill Still guy and our expectations before his coverages