Mine too.

I actually don't mind that it's not more publicised - it just means it's easier for early investors to get involved without the project being shilled to death (like GEMS or dadi).

All most shitcoins appear to do is to not solve a problem or to try to synthesise one where it doesn't exist. The fact that there is such a high density of the world's population that are dependant upon mobile microtransactions and never have access to a bank account seems like a problem that ought to be fixed. I like the fact that BABB's vision is so clearly elucidated, that there is a clear enough roadmap in place for app and product development, the team has a solid background (i.e. many graduates of good universities, and people who have worked in the banking sector previously), IP that's been patented, approvals from the FCA, and it's objectives are clear and they are rational about the deliverables and targets.

A lot of people have been asking about their (perceived lack of) partnerships on their telegram - my question would be why would a bank need partnerships in the same way as, say IOTA, whose entire methodology depends on adoption by other companies? If the objective is to have people acting as their own banks then the partnerships need to be with consumers and consumer adoption is possibly the big piece of marketing that they might need to do. But there is time for that, the pre-sale and public sale will provide funds for BABB to drive its marketing push in the way that it needs to.

So in a way, not bothered about the fact that more people aren't looking into it, because they eventually will - and the normal parameters which most cryptos are measured by (e.g. number of partnerships that a currency should have) might not be as applicable for this as for many.