I think some sort of share system would be fantastic, and would gladly donate some cash to the project.

I think a percentage of TX fees for a specific amount of time would be a smart idea - not just for investors/shareholders, but for the coin itself. I think that the developers of the coin should get some sort of benefit from it.

Say, 50% of TX fees go to miners, 20% go to a development fund (which can be allocated democratically through a vote-based model), and 30% go to shareholders and/or some sort of PoS system.

Depending on when you need investment, I may be down for $1,000 USD or an equivalent in LTC if you'd take LTC.

You've got me super uber excited man! Faster currency? and a unique PoW/PoS code different from PPC? This is going to be the next big thing.

In short,
no chain bloat from tons of PoS blocks and more secure.  Blocks come regularly as opposed to sporadically as per PPC.

Forums and chat coming soon.

This has probably already been mentioned but I really think it would be awesome to enable merge mining that also supports projects like SETI@home and other BOINC projects like helping find a cure for cancer.

Integrate this with the GUI of your coin so that miner can drag and select a percentage of their hashing power to contribute to the BOINC network (from 0% to 100%).

If the coin gets really popular this implementation could do so much good for the world it's unbelievable.

EDIT: also a GUI that enables anyone to mine easily, making mining more accessible for the masses = more people using the coin

So many members of the crypto community are techno idealists who want to change the world, I really think this is really worth doing The Bitcoin network is so powerful - imagine if this coin reached those levels and had this integration I'm so excited with this idea!

I totally agree with this...
GUI should be something like Bitminter, it's UserFriendly²

Opening up funding via shareholder option purchasable in USD or Alt coins would be a clever way of getting more of the community involved prior to the launch. I would be interested in seeing this coin come to fruition however I fear I cannot contribute on the developmental side. This is an avenue that should be explored, there appears to be interest in it Taco.

Random idea for the POW system, based off of a comment someone else made, and something I've been thinking of:

Difficulty only does one thing: regulate the number of coins given out, as solving the blockchain at difficulty 1 (even in Scrypt) would be rather easy.

Would it be feasible, then, to merge the POW/POS system with something that has real-world tangible value? What I'm talking about is merging with an entity that does something of great value in the real world, such as Folding@Home.

In such an example, the user would have to submit POW to both the blockchain, but also submit work units to F@H. The difficulty for the POW/POS would be extremely low, increasing at a much slower rate, as F@H folding points are much harder to come by. Additionally, it may further discourage FGPA/ASIC units, as protein folding would require dual-use systems such as CPUs and GPUs (which would also make CPUs generally more valuable, as the gap between CPUs and GPUs for F@H are closer, although GPUs are still notably better).

It would also open up one previously-unused portion of the market: Nvidia GPUs. NVidia GPUs are much faster than ATI GPUs for F@h, and would essentially equalize their abilities, as an NVidia GPU can fold about 3-4 times faster than a comparable ATI GPU (with the ATI GPU being able to hash at a similarly better rate).

I know this would be an out-there concept, but I think tying work into a dual-usage system may be incredibly lucrative, as it would not only spur on coinage, but scientific research as well. One could theoretically surmise that eventually, the MC2 coin could accept other projects similar to F@h as part of its dual POW system, allowing other heavy-duty scientific applications to use the crowd-sourced computing power. Think of it as killing two birds with one stone - all the while, likely rendering FGPA/ASICs useless.

Why would any reasonable person do it without any reward to it? (I suppose an unreasonable person would choose that option) You're basically relying on an altruism model but if that could work why not just ask miners to donate their GPU's to the Bitcoin foundation? (I'm not against including the big thank you name to the credits aspect I just think it wont generate much money, I don't see myself putting my precious limited Bitcoins up to get my name in the credits and a thanks).

I think on a very small scale it might work but it wont get nearly as much money as the relying on direct crypto-incentives. Think about it, if these coins are really going to be worth so much why would anyone want to give them up? Also the people who would give them up would be human sacrifices for those who don't which doesn't encourage the behavior for the next big coin or next big thing. I think the main problem is perhaps the scale, $10 for 1 netcoin? $20 for 3 netcoin? $100 for 1000 would work. $500 for 5000 would work. $1000 for 10,000 would work. $2000 for 20,000 would work. $3000 for 30,000 would work. If you set it up like that I'd buy $100 worth on the spot. But then you have a problem, it's still in USD and it's now going to look like a pre-mine. It absolutely must not favor USD even if USD is involved in my opinion if you fund with USD you should pay 20-30% extra as punishment. If you have the USD it wouldn't take much effort to convert that into Bitcoin and receive the discount. I think we should work the badge system in and replace the name in the credits and thank you. I would prefer to be in the background and not have my name attached to something like that but if I could have a badge, that badge could give a noble status or any status we choose as a community. This would encourage people to fund it to get that noble hero status.

I think if we follow an IPO process and actually provide incentives for funders and developers then you'll have the maximum amount of funders and developers. If you go the charity route then you're exploiting kindness. I'd rather exploit and reward greed than exploit and punish kindness. Also you're asking that people pledge dollars which makes no sense at all to me because that does not encourage adoption of cryptocurrencies.

So I still think proposition 1 is the best. It encourages people to actually make use of their Bitcoins to invest in Netcoins. Key word is invest because I don't see why anyone should just give their Bitcoin or USD away to a project before it's even developed and even if it were working what a donation is, it's basically making Netcoin into a kind of shareware model where the first suckers to buy it are paying for everyone else to get it for free.

I think Bitcoin has it right, reward the early adopters who mine it, but also extend on this and reward the early buyers. If you're willing to take a risk to buy and hold these coins (consistently reward risk takers, never punish the bold), or if you're willing to invest in it with Bitcoin you should get a return on the investment (reward the bold, never punish them but encourage). Nothing motivates behavior like profit. It's up to Tacotime of course as he's the lead developer but if he wants the maximum amount of money in the fastest amount of time and the ability to quit his job and focus exclusively on this project then all he has to do is set up a kind of IPO and many people will fund his project and his development fees. And those who do should be rewarded by those who ultimately use the finished product (everyone). Tacotime should also set up the funding amount to be enough that he can quit his job and fund development for approximately 2 years. This will probably mean something like $100,000 which I actually think is doable.

                  Here is a list of novel incentive mechanisms for consideration

• Reward risk takers
• Reward early adopters
• Reward with badges which bring community status
• Reward with limited transaction fees for early funders
• Reward all who pre-buy pre-exchange with a badge

Badges can be the solution to determining who is owed what rewards. It can also bring prestige, privilege or status. So for example if you fund the project early on you should receive a badge of a specific colour, type and rank. Associated with that badge should be the privilege to receive transaction fees of a certain percentage for a limited amount of time so that it's enough to profit from your investment. Or you can receive a badge which gives you 0 transaction fees for a certain amount of time so that you don't have to pay transaction fees up until it reaches a certain fixed amount of value lets say double what you initially invest, to code this miners would have to put certain individuals on a whitelist who have a specific badge number/hash. Perhaps namecoins could work for implementing this.

We can have many different colour badges with many different ranks, many different insignia, but the point is that these badges must be limited in the same way coins are, and people who invest in this project should receive a badge proving they were an early adopter, early investor, early buyer, and honestly there should be real community status for being bold, brave, and taking the risk. The badge system is something which developers probably would have to work on prior to anything else if they want to implement it but I think it would work great for this.