The level of having standard anonymity on all transactions in a coin (in my mind) increases the anonymity by as much adoption as the coin has. Instead of the powers that be being able to narrow down trying to track or trace the 5% of transactions that are anonymous they will have to attack the entire userbase to get any information.
Boolberry is conservative with standard anonymity: it makes sure all transactions have >1 mixin. Some transactions with Monero are not entirely anonymous (some can have mixin=0).
Monero is not a pump and dump. If you look closely at most coins - it's a game. Get in early, create a restriction on supply (in comparison to the availability of early supply) to force the prices up quickly so early holders can dump fast. Throw in some features after you've got your early coins to drive demand.
As far as I know, most coins do not change their supply after starting, and do not have an extremely fast emission. A "pump and dump" is a coin that has been
pumped and dumped. Monero has increased in price from 0.0002 BTC to just under 0.01 BTC, and has since fallen to just above 0.002 BTC. A 5000% increase qualifies as a "pump" and a 80% decrease qualifies as a "dump". If Monero is not a pump and dump, then most coins are not pump and dumps so what's your point? If Monero
does change its emission like is actually being considered by the MEW, then it is in every way a ridiculously hypocritical pump and dump.
BBR made the decision to prune ring signatures. Which if I understand correctly makes it impossible to mathematically prove previous transactions were actually anonymous without the code base (or something along these lines). I 100% want to figure out how to make the blockchain smaller per transaction - but I feel like being conservative about keeping proof of anonymity is a decision that bodes well for the future of the coin.
There is absolutely no evidence that pruning reduces anonymity.
Monero didn't get caught in the SuperNET hype. I could be missing something here - I honestly could. But the best I can understand the SuperNET is more like an exchange that is built into the wallet that can use another coins features by triggering two trades. Trade Bitcoindark for BBR -> send BBR to person -> trade back to bitcoindark (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). Based on what I've read on both the SuperNET and the BlockNET I'm 99% certain they are both gimmicks. Both require code implementations into a wallet. It won't bode well for a coin that legitimately has a future - to buy into a gimmick that was created primarily to allow a developer to offload his coin assets to create a demand.
As far as I know the exchange happens behind the scenes so each coin participating can use the features of other coins, e.g. A NXT user uses BBR's anonymity without buying BBR. This requires no change to the protocol of participating coins. Even if SuperNET is a "gimmick" it won't affect Boolberry or its future.
To wrap up - I'm fairly confident that if nothing on the cryptocurrency market changes (there are no significant contenders - which I DO BELIEVE there is room for one to come absolutely dominate the market but it would have to be a work of genius) then Monero is the clear winner in the anonymity PoW race. I believe the value crypto is strongly tied to psuedo anonymity & perhaps full anonymity when people discover they can have it.
This is ridiculous sentiment. Monero will be the only CryptoNote with long term success, and will eliminate all the other fair forks of Bytecoin because it was the first fork by less than three weeks? Monero is anything but the clear winner.
