Thought experiment 1:
Let's imagine a new blockchain proof-of-work cryptocurrency is created.
50% coins are pre-mined and assigned to an address owned by the creator.
Remaining 50% coins can be freely mined for many years with block reward halving, dynamic mining difficulty etc.
The currency has relatively small block size, like Bitcoin.
It also has a Lightning Network implemented from the very beginning.
Because 50% coins are pre-mined a central hub topology is possible and instant zero-fee payments are guaranteed between ANY two users, with no routing problems that are unavoidable in a distributed LN network (as described here:
https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800).
One can argue the problem is that 50% would be controlled by just one guy. But hey, won't it be almost identical with Lighnitng Network? If LN is supposed to allow instant transfers between ANY two users, the network will have to evolve towards "a very few big hubs" topology ANYWAY.
One can say "OK, but a few hubs is not the same as one guy". Fair enough, but it's easy to work this round e.g by marking majority of the premined 50% coins as "unusable" and release them in big tranches according to some "smart contracts" to biggest stakeholders to guarantee that the network topology will always have a few big hubs.
My main question is how would all this be different than Bitcoin's LN? Correct me if I'm wrong but the observable result will be absolutely identical, the main advantage of this hypotetical new currency is that it would assume a specific, desired LN topology from the very beginning. It would kinf of lay cards openly on the table: we want few large hubs to guarantee fast transactions & scalability from day one.
Also, if I understand correctly, there are already existing cryptos that are pre-mined such as IOTA, and they are tradeable and grow fast, reaching quite a big capitalizations. That kind of proves my point that the cryptocurrency community doesn't seem to generally care about pre-mining concept.
Thought experiment 2:
Let's imagine that some day all scalability issues will be resolved (I doubt this BTW, but that's something for another thought experiment
).
So let's imagine it will be technically possible to have a fully scalable, decentralized, trustless cryptocurrency that can be integrated with all merchants in the world and handle traffic as big as 50k tx/second or whatever.
A following paradox may occur: a mature cryptocurrency that is in its late phase of its supply curve (with very little or no supply at all left) will have to grow very slowly. A few percents a year at most, as this will reflect its resistance to fiat money inflation. But an alternative cryptocurrencies (which can be easily created) that are early in their lifecycle can potentially guarantee hundreds of % growth. What will prevent some of those other cryptocurrencies from growing so big? Keep in mind that by that time a lot of stuff will be much much easier. Since the crypto market will be mature, a lot of technical know-how will be available.
Therefore it will be easier and easier each year to integrate 2nd, 3rd, N-th cryptocurrency into any given exchange. It will also be easier and easier each year to integrate n-th cryptocurrency at merchants. In other words, it will be easier and easier to argue that any n-th, newly created cryptocurrency is in fact as good as the slow-growing mature one. And vice-versa: it will be harder and harder each year to argue that any given crypto is somehow "special" and more valuable only because it is mature.
Of course "entry level" will still be relatively big, and a random person would notbe able to create their own crypto. But a big corporation? Why not? A big corporation may entirely ignore mature cryptos such as Bitcoin and launch its own crypto and start paying their eployees in that crypto, arguing they can always exchange it if they don't like it. But a lot of people would quickly realize it's better to actually keep that new crypto or even mine it since it's in the beginning of its supply curve. So they would sell their bitcoins just to buy (or invest in mining) more of the new one. Because why not? The new one will be integrated: it will be as exchangable and as acceptable as mature one.
It's kind of similar to when a new bank appears. In Poland where I'm from each bank has their own web / mobile app for sending wires, managing your deposits etc. There are payment operators that integrate banks with merchants. When a new bank appears on the market, they simply add it to their UI payment widget (that apperas on merchants online store or merchant's mobile app) and when they go live, that new bank's payment channel becomes available at all merchants! I cannot see reason why the same can't be the case with new cryptocurrencies?
So my point is, with time, the price of all alternative cryptos should converge to exactly same level, reflecting their identical value to customers. But the number of possible crypto implementations is actually infinite.
Therefore, that price level where all cryptos will eventually meet is... zero?
