I have always been suspicious of the Bitcoin-MIT connection. Anyone who has downloaded that original Bitcoin Core wallet will notice in the 'About' tab, that MIT plays a role in the research and release of the wallet software. Everyone 'talks' about how the software is 'open source', meaning that a trained programmer can look into the 'code' and determine what each piece of the program is doing.
I cannot read the code, so I must rely on the good faith of others to find any mistakes or bug or backdoors.
If Microsoft engineers can't read problems with their own 'code', and only know of issues after an exploit is found, then am I crazy in relying on a volunteer programer to provide my security check on a piece of software that is holding ~$290K USD?
After the Bitcoin network slowed down and transaction times suffered due to lag, the 'hard fork' debate began. It was at that time that I moved all my holdings in DASH.
I chose DASH for three main reasons. 1) it has an anonymizing feature 2) it has paid employees with the incentive to protect the security of the 'code', as well as marketing and research departments 3) it has 'Master nodes' that guarantee transactions and allow for instant (<1sec) transactions on the network.
I am not giving advice or suggesting anyone invest in DASH, rather I am adding my opinion to back up Will Lehr in this article/video. The second generation cryptos have seen the development of Bitcoin, and improved on it.