I would certainly not rule out partial payment in crypto, but maintain that fiat currency is a must if you are seeking a professional - this is what they do for a living and (sadly) you can't pay the rent/mortgage/utility bills in Quark (or bitcoin for that matter). However, if the development work is to be done on a hobby/as-and-when-time-allows basis then crypto bounties are fine, but I can't see that supporting a concerted effort to lift a coin out of the doldrums.
I would take things as they are: Quark - like all other Altcoins - is an experiment, they are not (yet) serious business even if some pretend it to be different. I would even argue that this can be said for Bitcoin. I rather prefer a hobby developer who needs more time to do things but is dedicated to the project than a professional who only works once he or she gets paid in fiat.
I also say this because the developers aren´t the only ones who make a currency successful and invest time into the project: without good promo, good networking, good miners etc. the currency is anything but just another quick trade. So the same as you are right with arguing that the developers need money for a living you can say that core members need money for a living. We all do it in our sparetime as a donation to the community and everyone who holds theoretically profits.
So, yes, I would rather go the "indie" way than another. Imho the only projects who can afford to pay out "real" saleries are those with large IPOs or comparable approaches (Darkcoin etc.). While this is definitely an approach that can be promising (can also be used to exploit) I think it is still worth a try to start with community driven payments. There is a lot of competition on the market but even promising coins with professional backing may and will disappear in a while because the hype is "burned out" so I personally think it is worth giving it a try with internally raised funds and a slowly but steady progress.
I wouldn´t rule out BTC payments instead of QRK entirely (especially when it comes to a grand overhaul process of the currency) but I would give it definitely a lower priority and prefer to work with people who trust in the value of the community. We already have some of those on board and if we manage to keep the exchange with Max Guevara running we will be able to get those people more involved when it comes to core developent.
Taking the final paragraph first. BTC has a clear route to fiat which would (IMO) make a big difference in terms of attracting expertise to the project. I accept BitCoin (and am also considering other alt-currencies) in payment for both design work and fine art sales, including for the latter, the shipping and insurance costs which for the larger works can get quite expensive.
I very much agree with your observations that these are early days for alt-currencies, that all alt-currencies, including BitCoin, are experimental. And also that expert programming is not the only factor to contribute to the success of a currency. However, there always is one
, poor programming can (as we have seen on numerous occasions) bring a coin to a dead stop which no amount of marketing, mining nor good will from the community will resolve. Here I see the recovery time as being critical lest the community drifts away. A hobbyist developer may not be in a position to act nor be able guarantee their work, whereas a professional would, especially if a formal contract has been agreed. I hope that things pick up for Quark and look forward to making my first Quark sale!
