You know the more I have been thinking about what happened with Mast, the more I am coming to realize it was pretty much 3 people that worked to destroy this coin.
This was my first coin I got involved in, and if I knew what I now know... I could have worked better to support the Mast team and deflect the fud from that small group. Nobody but that group were fudding Mast in social Media, so overall the coin is still in good standing. I have seen trends from coins that came back from crap like this. I may have said things out of frustration, but my frustration was nothing compared to what I bet the Devs were dealing with.
If Mast Devs continue work, they have my full support. I know we can come back!
Better to go through this sooner than later, as it is an inevitable part of having a decentralized organization. The community had formed, and the community was given a chance to save the coin by showing support for the developers. People have spoken up, and the developers had long term projects lined up already, which they had informed the community about. At this point, I think it's pretty clear that plenty of people support the developers and want to see them do something great.
To the point I was thinking on the proof of developer could have a counterbalance of proof of development.
So, for example, if there is a protocol where it goes something like this:
If the Tor wallet integration is the next phase of development, the developers would put in a request to the POD system for X btc worth of project funding. So, say for example it's 10 bitcoin to be simple.
If it's 10 bitcoin, the developers and community could decide on a number of checkpoints
At every checkpoint of development, the coin that was put into the community reserve to go to the developer could be sent to the dev wallet, and the dev could send proof of development to either a system check or an ombudsperson to keep the developer anonymity and third party check as a "witness" whether human or system based.
That is an easy way to have development transparency, but not have to force the developer to give up anonymity if they don't want to.
Chris