Stronci, the financial support to go on with the coin vanished the moment MineralPR announced that dev doesn't want to spend more of his money to the project than the 4000$ he already invested, which in my opinion is an awful lot of money for something like this.
Although it was said to be a long term project, I think they expected 50k by the first tournament and constant growth afterwards, with a doubling of the price every time a new game got added to the betting service and that already after the first month of Minerals. It didn't turn out this way and they got discouraged. Only costs, no revenue. (overly simplified explanation to illustrate the intentions)
In order for them to go on, they need this support in Bitcoin, Euro, Dollars, Rubles, Yuan or any other fiat currency.
The problem is that there is no one in his right mind that will give money to someone else who refuses to identify himself and communicate in an appropriate manner. Even Richard Branson or Warren Buffett wouldn't give a penny to this project under these circumstances.
And don't get me wrong. Proof of Developer is not enough if you want to raise funds. A clear business plan is needed, guarantees that the project doesn't get cancelled or abandoned once the funds are received, and above all, a legal way to get your money back and sue the company or individual if the project intentionnally fails due to mismanagement or other more dubious reasons. (remember IconicExpert? )
You want investors to back your project with hard cash, then you need to accept the consequences and all the requirements that come with the founding of a startup or classic business.
What you are saying is so true.
Everybody hoped that a tournament would make the price rise, but if you really think about it, why would it? It is only the current holders that would take part in the first tournament. If you want price to rise, you need demand > supply, you need people other than current holders to buy to use. Any other rise in price is pure speculative in nature. Real adoption takes lot of good PR and marketing over a long period (hint hint MineralsPR) and 4, 5, 6 even 10 tournaments may be required to get there.
Perhaps the devs relied too heavily on a high price to fund development. In hindsight, they should have played open cards if they have limited funds because then it would have been important to do anon first to get the higher price to fund development.
I said it somewhere else and I cannot remember where, that there is a high correlation between running a coin and running a company. The only coin that will be really successful is one backed by a real company with lots of money to fund development right through to implementation and adoption, just like product development. The alt-coin scene is full of wannabe devs that bluff and make as if they have lots of money, but behind the scenes they are either in it to dump quickly to make a quick buck and run, or they fake it and make as if they are big shots with lots of money and if they cannot get the price up quickly they bail. Where are the devs that really care and really want to deliver a quality product over a longer period?
There might be exceptions like Bitcoin, but there is just one Bitcoin, just like there was one Woodstock with lots of attempted failed clones.
Unless proven otherwise by a coin, at this point everything seems to support the notion that the alt-coin scene is just one big fake and scam with a few people making some quick bucks and the rest lose their money and sit with big worthless bags.