Solid,
within a year hashes will go from MH/s to double digit H/s 
Network difficulty will drop like crazy and block reward will explode, destroying any value the coin might have had.
While I often agree with a number of the things you've said, I'm worried you're starting to exaggerate. In the main YACoin thread, today you posted that anyone could've developed a GPU miner days in advance, yet only the original developer (and anyone he tipped off) could've been aware he was going to pull a surprise move and use a different hashing algorithm than anyone was expecting. Changing from scrypt+salsa20/8+SHA256(1024,1,1) to scrypt+chacha20/8+Keccak512(N,1,1) did turn out to be significantly more than just a copy-paste exercise from the scrypt-jane library source, at least for anything that was going to go faster on GPU's than typical desktop CPU's.
In your comment above, I think your numbers are exaggerated a bit. I just benchmarked with a Linux build of cpuminer and forced N to various values:
Platform: IBM HS21 blade server, 2x Xeon E5450's (similar combined performance to one i7-2600k).
For N=32 (at coin's launch), hash rate = 358.77 kH/sec
For N=256 (right now), hash rate = 119.25 kH/sec
For N=32768 (in one year), hash rate = 0.606 kH/sec
Both your upper bound (MH/sec) and lower bound (double digit H/sec) are off by an order of magnitude each in the typical CPU hashing performance scenario, so your statement is really off by 2 orders of magnitude overall.
I'm all for pointing out problems with a coin when it's justified. As you know, on day 1 of the coin launch, I was right there alongside you posting about the probability that GPU implementation was very likely to be possible, and I also posted honest details about my server farm mining, Amazon AWS mining, FPGA implementation at N=32, and the results of my GPU implementation. You did parade a lot of that info as evidence of premining in the first post of your Superfun Premining thread, even though I started mining a whopping 8.5 hours after launch and I seriously doubt anyone can accuse me of either premining or instamining. That probably pissed off plenty of people that would like those things to have remained secret, but I believe transparency and honesty is the answer to developing trust and keeping everyone in-the-loop on technical matters.
I think I have yet to sugar-coat anything related to YACoin, however. When people grill me on the hard questions about whether YACoin is GPU mining resistant at any particular value of N, even though I'm not the original developer and didn't choose the hashing algorithm or starting value of N, and apparently made myself the "YACoin lightning rod" by actually stepping up to improve problems with the code and make it a better coin rather than just complain about it, I'm still right there being perfectly honest and saying "maybe, maybe not, we don't know yet until we see the source code for some of those GPU implementations." We've had one person post OpenCL source in this thread that was pretty close to a copy-paste from the scrypt-jane library with a few tweaks, and from my analysis, he did get fairly close to a working implementation, but once fixed, the hash rate isn't spectacular. It's appearing that getting a working OpenCL implementation is not difficult (well, debugging anything on OpenCL is an "adventure"), but getting one that performs much better than CPU's actually does take a fairly good OpenCL skillset (i.e. if mtrlt's posted hash rate numbers are accurate, which they may well be since he was the developer of the Reaper scrypt GPU kernel that cgminer uses too, then he probably sets the mark for skillset needed to correctly optimize for decent hash rates).
So, anyway, when I see exaggerations that are off by 2 orders of magnitude, I'm afraid I'll have to call you out on it (as much as I respect you). I'd prefer to see you discredit a coin with accurate info, not exaggerations.
