Well, if I understood well, CC2 while bringing a lot of improvements, will also bring the need of Certification Authorities to sign certificates in order to remove the need for PoW by mining. This centralization (and the trust in Certification Authorities) might be a hinder for people to invest in it and there is a risk the value of CC2 won't take-off.

However due to the open source, somebody could "steal" all the "good" improvements in CC2 and easily create a coin that would take advantage of all the CC dev team work without rewarding folders. By creating SigmaX, that one alternate decentralized coin would already exist and if CC2 won't take-off maybe SigmaX will and us folders would not have lost everything. It's like betting on two different horses, both of them being ours.

While PoW by mining is indeed a waste of electricity, it provides the decentralization that is good for trust (and investors need trust... cf. Bitcoin) so in my opinion CC2 should have been CC1 + (all the stuff that makes it quantum computing resistant) - the premine. So there is a chance SigmaX might do better than CC2.

I would therefore suggest no big premine for SigmaX (it was a main criticism against CC) just a 1:1 CC:SigmaX distribution (like for CC2) and then run in parallel the two coins (distribution based on folding ppd) and see which one takes-off.