Is it safe to say that all eth forkes are waiting for eth's code for pos?
That's a solid strat, no? Isn't catching what eth drops the primary advantage for an eth fork? The only reason for the recent drop across the board (including Lisk which isn't even an eth fork) is that the smart contract/dapp technology itself came into question. Most of the suits investing in these things don't seem to understand how this stuff works. That's really the only way I can rationalize the way the markets reacted to the DAO event: they became scared of smart contracts as a concept.
I certainly hope that Shift and Expanse don't do PoS until after Ethereum does. It makes strategic sense to let Ethereum do the risky innovating and stick to mashing up with other decentralized web services and renaming geth's js namespaces, editing documentation and CMakeLists.txt files.
Comparing all the existing forks we are the most active in unique development without purely relying on Ethereum's releases.
The difference between other forks and SHIFT is that we are not purely marketing the functionality inherited by forking off Ethereum, which seems to be why the other forks suffered alongside Ethereum with this recent uncertainty.
We have and always will be building our own unique vision of a parallel, decentralized internet instead of advertising functionality that we inherited without adding any value to the crypto ecosystem itself.
Personally I really like Shift, am mining and buying more than the other forks (and at times even ETH itself). I would like to see more pull requests upstream from shiftcurrency -> ethereum though if you guys are innovating the tech. I might even start contributing code myself if that were the case. I'm a sucker for the underdog
. 
