Interesting, what would you have done differently? How do you think it should've been handled?
i took a little look at your project and see some issues.
a person can create 51~(1 first tier 49 second tier) fake social media profiles and add himself to get f1,000 and then from there, repeat using the other profiles and then move the funds into one address.
basically you end up with 1 person ending up with a circle of himself and accumulating f1000 per alter ego just by making
1 new profile and linking to the 50 older profiles created.
you will not need to inflate your currency. because the referral plan you have will hyper inflate new currency, all by itself.
also you say about inflating the spending..
then giving "interest" to the savers..
basic economics is that the"interest" (making new currency to give to savers) is inflation aswell. thus you are inflating the currency in 3 ways
1. coin creation via referrals
2. coin creation in spending
3. coin creation in savings
inflation is BAD. people dont want it where f1000 would buy a loaf of bread today. but tomorrow it requires 1020 to buy some bread
lastly. about inflations. you say that exchanges will store funds in 'spending'.. nope. its like 'hotwallets' exchanges only keep 1-5% of customers funds in 'spending' and then have 95-99% in cold wallets. which in your project would be a savings address
..
as for decentralisation.
well if all the referrals are the same person of a circle. thats not decentralisation.
sometimes you have to realise that code cannot solve social issues.
yea cryptography can reduce hackers ability to get your passwords. but a hammer to someones knuckles or knee joints
until the scream out the password cannot be protected by cryptography.
as for mining
you mention limiting the size of pools. again this is not good.
here is an example. (il drop the numbers down for easy demo)
if a pool can only have 5 identities. then one person will just make 10 pools
or 5 people (that are real who are in the same family). will have 1 people ID per pool each and run 50 pools using each of their alterego's per pool
thus all controlling all the mining in one family
as for the payout for 'mining' 35 years to double that circulation.. meaning 35 years to double each persons F1000 holdings.
an average persons 'savings' is about a weks grocerys to a couple months salary. they wont want to run a program for 35 years where the pay out calculates to double their currency in 35 years. and yet have the value of that currency dwindle down via the savings and referral inflations much sooner
(i stopped reading your project at this point as the flaws were outwaying good economic logic)
summary.
i dont think you really thought out the economics of your project right. everything seems upside down and offering the opposite to what cryptocurrencies are all about.
it seems you more than likely come from the MLM community.
i can see many solutions to many other issues i didnt mention and also solutions to ones have mentioned. but your project does not show sustainability in its current form