The Top 100 out of 12590 holders collectively own 51.02% of TheDAO

[BitFomo]

Three of the wallets have 38888800, 28888800, and 18888800 tokens.

https://etherscan.io/token/thedao-token-chart?range=100

[GreenBits]

Three of the wallets have 38888800, 28888800, and 18888800 tokens.

https://etherscan.io/token/thedao-token-chart?range=100

As with most zero sum games, all the big players interest tend to align when its all said and done. There is a similar stratification (sometimes much worse) in most momentary systems.

[Za1n]

Wow, that is a much fairer distribution than that of USD in which the top 0.1% own more than 90% of the share. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/11/inequality-now-king-serf-level.html

Did some quick math and the top 0.1% of DAO holders (13 out of 12,640) only control 25.94721%.

Of course this assumes that each account == 1 person. This is most likely a faulty assumption and it is quite possible one individual or entity controls multiple address out of the top 100 list.

[BitFomo]

Three of the wallets have 38888800, 28888800, and 18888800 tokens.

https://etherscan.io/token/thedao-token-chart?range=100

As with most zero sum games, all the big players interest tend to align when its all said and done. There is a similar stratification (sometimes much worse) in most momentary systems.

In a zero sum game, someone makes money at the expense of someone else losing money. The DAO is supposed to generate new money for the share holders. So I dont see how you consider this a zero sum game, unless you have been itching to use that term arbitrarily.

[Hollowman338]

One of those is probably the bittrex DAO purchasing account.

[cryptohunter]

By ico standards on this board that is a very wide and very fair initial distribution.

[GreenBits]

Three of the wallets have 38888800, 28888800, and 18888800 tokens.

https://etherscan.io/token/thedao-token-chart?range=100

As with most zero sum games, all the big players interest tend to align when its all said and done. There is a similar stratification (sometimes much worse) in most momentary systems.

In a zero sum game, someone makes money at the expense of someone else losing money. The DAO is supposed to generate new money for the share holders. So I dont see how you consider this a zero sum game, unless you have been itching to use that term arbitrarily.

All traded markets are zero sums. If this asset cannot be traded for its value, then it's not an asset.

Care to argue semantics some more? You may have to go a bit further than Wikipedia.

[Sark]

The top 5 holders are likely to be exchanges who are either holding tokens for clients or looking for trading liquidity.

The distribution is almost certainly more widespread than that if you remove the exchanges.