"Wikipedia and its famousness is worth the flaws"
I strongly disagree on this one. You are talking about "target potential" as if we are about to conquer a new market.
I'm not sure what your expectations are regarding a collaboration with Wikipedia, but if we end up doing this, nothing really changes about the relationship between GRC and its counterpart: it will still be a "symbiotic relation" - actually, I don't really see the difference, especially since you criticize the dependency on BOINC projects. With Wikipedia GRC would also be dependant on their system - just the "product" changes.
As for the "target potential" I'm not sure I understand. Are you talking about Wikipedia editors and users jumping on the hype train once they discover GRC? Why would they suddenly become part of this concept, respectively start to invest in GRC the moment it develops a relationship with the Wikimedia Foundation? What exactly are you hoping for in this scenario? More miners? More traders gambling on exchanges?
Maybe I'm a bit biased because I like GRC because of the collaboration with BOINC, plus I'm fairly new to all of this so I might not get the big picture here. But imho marketing and joint ventures don't make any sense if GRC doesn't have any real purpose - not only within the crypto community, but also within the real world.
If you simply want to start some hype and get more people on the train, I guess your marketing strategy is a legit solution to get more people involved. But the lack of long-term investment options as well as long-term GRC application will just create another bubble that will do more damage than good imho.
I agree:
what do you think about my loose proposal described here?
It's on my to-read-list for this week. I'll let you know when I'm done :)