This is the problem with all those ninja launches, the people that launch those coins have some good hash power, so what happens, they mine a lot of coins in the beginning, put it on a exchange, dump it, and move on.
Think of it. Every ninja launch. 2 BTC dumping or so, cost of mining, almost notihng as it will be most likely someone in a country that electricity is almost free or has solar panels. Every day or every week taking 2 BTC profit for a person from Asia (for example) then that is more then what 99% of the people in those countries are earning.
We need to say no against ninja launches, with we, i mean , the exchanges and the mining pools etc. This is bigger scam then the ICO coins.
Rule 1: Not mineable for more then 10 years, not listed.
Rule 2: premine or ICO more then 1%, not listed.
It is getting harder to tell a promising project from a pump and dump these days, partially because of ninja launches. I am sure there will be a handful of people who call me stupid for this one, but I thought GPH (GraphCoin) was going to make it big. It had a responsive dev who was consistently available to answer questions in the thread for weeks on end, innovative and groundbreaking features, showed evidence of progress and development and didn't speak like a clueless fucktard when he posted. About as good as it gets these days. Alas, right before a big feature was due to hit, the dev pulled a "uhhhh, one of our friends ran away and left us with broken code so coin is dead. Whoops!". Looking back on it, what probably happened it he insta-mined loads of coins during the ninja launch, and then propped up the market as he slowly dumped stake on people over the course of a month. All he had to do was string everyone along to keep them buying and not dumping.
I'd say your 2 rules are a bit too strict. Coins don't tend to get much community support if it takes ages for the inflation to fall. It's just a fact of life in the crypto world that development and distribution needs to move faster than it used to. I could write a book on the reasons why, but one of the big practical and legit reasons is that the network effort of BTC has so massively outpaced alt-coins that anything that wants to potentially stick around in the top ten cryptos for the time being needs to cement it's position there ASAP. I also have no problem with large premines or ICOs as long as we can ensure the devs are using the funds for development and following through on their promises. How to do this most effectively though, is a topic for debate.
I posted about this in some other thread, so excuse me if you read the same lines twice, but I think one of the biggest things that would help the state of alt-coins is for exchanges to stop instantly adding new coins the day they are released. I remember when you had to take risks with your hash. Mining a coin for days or weeks on end and crossing your fingers, hoping and praying that cryptsy will add it soon. Now it's a sure thing that any shitcoin you mine will be added to some exchange somewhere, and usually sooner rather than later. Today scam devs can ninja launch a coin in the wee hours of the morning, dump the premine/instamine by lunch, and be preparing their next shitcoin before dinner. Simply making these devs aware that you are gonna have to stick around for a month or so and show some sort of tangible progress in development before any exchange will touch you, would go a long way toward discouraging these scam clone coins.