You have not spotted there is Mapping Cancer Markers sub-project since November?

ETA: Isn't "Agud" you alter ego nick?

Not surprised, there aren't any!

Approach researchers who may be able to use the power of WCG (taking into consideration the set requirements - e.g., the results are to be made available in the Public Domain etc.), and encourage them, if at all possible, to try and get their project to use the GPU processes that are eager and willing to crunch for them.

Please note though, not all projects (as can be seen here), are actually suitable for GPU processing - if they were, then I'm sure that FA@H, CEP2 et al, would have already switched over.

Edit: As to why we've currently got 3 projects in an "intermittent" stage (HFCC, C4CW & SNTS), then please refer to their respective forums for in-depth details. Basically though, WCG are waiting to hear back from the respective project scientists on what their next move will be.

While everyone, myself included, is very disappointed that we don't another gpu enabled project, the OP raises a good point about the fact that we don't seem to be attracting new projects.

There's no way that I believe the official line that no one else wants to tap in to what we have to offer here. I suspect that the effort required on the part of researchers to launch a project here is probably more trouble for them than it's worth. And after seeing the glacial pace at which things move around here, I also wouldn't be surprised if that's also an issue.

Even though we add between 100 and 200 new users per day, we are losing active users at an even faster rate than we're gaining them and yet nothing is done about that. Specifically, since the beginning of the year, we have lost almost 2000 (that's right - 2000 ) active users.

If WCG has the same attitude toward researchers and their projects, it's a small miracle that we even have the projects that we do.

That's probably true, but we need to ask ourselves why I think.

BOINC is old news to us and the folks who support it have done a good job of making it pretty easy to install and select a project, so kudos to them. But that's really only the first step in a potentially confusing set of steps required to actually start getting XRP credits.

We really need to have some sort of guide to help people through the process. That should really be on the main web site but then of course you'd have people complaining about the fact that WCG is supporting one particular team. Obviously you could still do it by including the appropriate caveats, but how likely do you really think it is that WCG would do that without find an endless number of bogus excuses - just like they have regarding the forum software?

The alternative would be for someone to create a guide off-board in a blog or something. That might do if people didn't come here, have no idea how to navigate the forum and just give up and go away. It might be a good thing for Ripple Labs to do, but personally I think they're doing quite a lot already - much more than WCG itself - so I don't really think it's fair to ask them when WCG is the one that benefits.

Except WCG doesn't really see it as a benefit but more of a burden. So their ambivalence is hardly surprising.

edit: And by the way, I was talking about ACTIVE users, not just people who sign up and do nothing. That is bad enough but the people we are losing are people who clearly WANT to contribute.