I believe it has more anon than DRK as DRK isn't anon from dev's owns word.
Only problem with this one is that the wallet needs to be online so far. I think the link on reddit is pure FUD so far.
Their expected ETA for the wallet is before end of June so we'll see then what's up with this.
DRK provides at least CoinJoin implementation if I understood correctly. CoinJoin is not completely anonymous.
But CRYPT doesn't even provide that. So that online wallets are not the only problem here.
I don't know why you keep spreading this FUD. As I understand it. You are trading wallet address on encrypted communication and nobody has any clue who these new wallet address belongs to but the sender and the receiver. There is no other link.
Sure depending on how it's coded you might find some clue if it's not properly coded or if the transaction volume is too low. We will see in 1-2 weeks. For now it's better imho
Yes, you're exchanging wallet addresses on encrypted communication channel. I think that this is everything that CRYPT does. However, this is already done in bitcoin world when accessing merchant's webpage via HTTPS. And bitcoin is not considered being "anonymous" in any serious way.
Hiding of receiving addresses does not prevent any kind of blockchain analysis because transactions are just ordinary blockchain transactions. They are probably not even merged with transactions from other users (CoinJoin).
But I really don't know because nobody on this forum is willing to explain anything and the devs are not explaining anything. This is the real problem.
You cannot market CRYPT coin to users as having "anon" features because nobody can "prove" that they are really anonymous. And this could be dangerous for them (users). Some of them will rely on this anon feature which may or may not really provide what is it promising (anonimity).
just sell i'll buy 
