> I can understand that you're upset about missing the boat on bitcoin and want a do-over

I'm not upset about missing the wave of bitcoin. I have no delusions that science coins will miraculously take over as the predominant means of exchange. I'm concerned about the dominance of nation states like China controlling so much hashing power (according to Bloomberg, China is home to 90% of bitcoin trades and 70% of mining) This only benefits the nation state. In addition to bitcoin, China is hording precious metals faster than it can use them as a hedge against anti-trade and nationalist policies gaining popularity in the West.

> these altcoins don't require or allow decentralization

Before the Wright Brothers, people assumed the only way people could fly was using an airship or balloon. Innovations in blockchain technology similar to a decentralized computational AI engine being developed by NeurealAI could negate centralized control for the means of production of research data. Should science coin participants stop what they're doing, and wait for this to happen!? Or can we innovate around the limitations today, and be ready to merge with such a technology when it becomes ready in x number of years.

For the moment, this is a unique way to attract more citizen science participation in distributed computing. Centralized rewards systems like those implemented by EVGA are noble, but very limited (they cost the company money). You can fold all you want, but only claim a limited discount on equipment from their online store. The lack of "grande" eureka breakthroughs from distributed computing (it's a mundane workman's kind of research that takes place very early in the discovery process (like potential druggable state discovery for example), has led to a slow, silent drift towards "corporate philanthropy". Google, AWS, Microsoft and others may be shifting idle cloud instances to contribute to DCNs. I doubt they are doing this without a tax incentive (nobody knows for sure) - something "folders" and "crunchers" have never been able to claim until possibly the advent of cryptocurrency.

> made-up token that happens to make early adopters wealthier and cause price volatility

... sure, however it's not like these coins have been kept a secrete. They didn't *suddenly* appear. People have been boosting them around the world for over two years now. You can look up CureCoin, FoldingCoin and GridCoin and come up with a combined >300,000 hits on Google. CureCoin, for example mentions a system of integrating with retailer coupon and charitable giving systems to encourage small folder participation as well. The intention isn't to drown out casual participant, but rather to give them more incentive than they couldn't get through philanthropy alone.

> if the public was soured on the concept of crowd-funded cures because of early exploitation

Crowdfunded research is notoriously ineffective. Look up the words Cancer Research on Indiegogo and you'll find countless projects (even those by well known research organizations) that NEVER reach "escape velocity". I believe, with all the disclaimers and caveats (on top of every crypto wallet including bitcoin's still being beta) anyone is betting the farm on digital coins keyed to crowd-sourced computing. If these payment experiments fail, people will go back to their previous levels of participation and let corporations further encroach into crowd-sourced computing. It would be a shame.

Opinion from a bitcoin or Litecoin purist - I understand your frustration with hybrid altcoins occasionally taking the spotlight away from your investment.

However to a lot of new investors who resist bitcoin's value proposition, CureCoin, FoldingCoin, and GridCoin make perfect sense for now. One day these may become sidechains of bitcoin or some other PoW coin "X", but for now these are the "baby steps" required to get there.

To your other point - 80% of the coin IS actually, as you say, Folding@home+(insert centralized payment system) under v1.x. It comes from a pre-mine in the mining pool (only 18%-20% of the coin payout is PoW & PoS based on Peercoin). Curecoin indicated the future versions will have ~100% of the coins generated from certificates (eventually signed ones). How many other pump & dump clones have been able to sustain any longevity?

Even IF these coins were simply a pump; distributed computing isn't going away any time soon - especially not now with the advent of these payment systems. Of course, it's never a good idea to put all your eggs in one crypto ... always diversify.

If you're folding proteins anyway, CureCoin will not make your electric bill go up. Ask yourself how much time have you wasted online fighting political battles with invisible foes, or playing "Battlefield" til the wee hours of the morning. Even if you don't like the CureCoin idea - spending 10 minutes to just create a FAH account, and folding using Chrome NaCl could save lives in the not too distant future. But I'm certainly biased.

It means you can pay for part or all of your electric bill and to fund your equipment and maintenance (especially if you do "merge-folding" with FoldingCoin, you can look that up). It means you can exchange CURE for BTC on three exchanges (ultimately for cash), or you can trade it for goods and services on the evolving CoinPayments.net (you can even buy a motorized scooter for it now). Unlike some other reward systems, you are not limited to the amount of CURE you can hold or exchange ... however only 7488 coins are released on a daily basis (to folders). There is an additional ~1870 coins awarded to Proof of Work SHA-256 miners to secure the network although the coin has been utilizing a larger percentage of Proof of Stake in liue of PoW to secure the network over the past year). After the first four years, those rewards will be cut in half and continue to be cut in half every 4 years for the next 100 years based on the current mining model.

The coin has a built-in controlled supply (which roughly equates to a precious metals mining paradigm over a 100 year period) This means the more people fold for CURE, the more computational research each coin represents (therefor increasing competition for the coin!!!). You can also donate the coins to help fund additional research outside of Stanford on their website. Based on some of the latest on bitcoin talk, they are working on making those coins tax deductible. CureCoin is producing over 100,000,000 PPD (and they've only been around for 2+ years).

So that's why you may want to 'bother'. Competition absolutely SUPERCHARGES research progress - without the need to resort to "corporate philanthropy".

It is a hybrid as well, however the primary means of earning the coin is through running folding@home bio-medical research software. The coin rewards participants from an 80% pre-mine (something that will change in the future (see SigmaX)). That being said, the system has been very stable for over a two years with only one minor security update required for the wallet along the way. In its current status, PoS is probably earning more coins than SHA-256 PoW mining right now: https://www.curecoin.net/knowl... It is trade-able on three major exchanges and listed on bnktothefuture's coinpayments.net (your business can actually accept CURE with at least some consumer protections)

From a purely futuristic perspective, the altcoin CURE (aka CureCoin) prevents mining silos ... and even if China took over mining/folding of CURE, it benefits the entire global community since the only way to mine it is through protein folding research (ok 80% is folded, and 20% is still SHA-256). But if you're feeling patriotic, or slightly xenophobic ... the research being done is seeded by the NIH and NSF. Food for thought.