Guys, if nobody benefits, not even investors and in the end not even the miners, it's fair?
You got some serious brain-problems.
It's going to fail because nobody benefits - not even the ones supporting it.
No, that's not what I'm saying. The irregular ups and downs will shake out many, and there will be no relationship between the initial (and evidently unfair) distribution, and the final distribution. Of course some people will benefit: the seigniorage will go somewhere. It will go to miners (by definition, a miner is winning: a miner only mines if there is a margin to make), and it will go to SOME people buying and SOME people selling, but totally randomly determined.
The one who maybe benefits is the whale who scoops it all up on the bottom and pumps and dumps it on you fanboys.
The other one who benefits is the one who shorts it. So your logic is catastrophic.
As there is absolutely no possible prediction, you can just as well be ruined when shorting than when going long. You can get ruined totally as a whale too, if the price doesn't do what you expected.
Early investors benefit heavily - and since nobody benefits after them obviously, it looks more and more like a ponzi.
Imagine that early adopters who bought at, say, $0.5 and "hodl", see the price fall eventually to $0.1 7 years from now. What will they do ? Get out ? Keep ? Imagine that 15 years from now, it goes up to $1000,-. Will it be the early adopters, or the crazy guys who bought from them at $0.1, who benefit ? Will they sell at $1000,- or will they hold ? Suppose that after that, 4 years later, it goes down to $3.0 ? Suppose it wiggles a few more times. In the end, the coins, as well as the seigniorage, will be TOTALLY RANDOMLY distributed.
If in the end, bitcoin dies, it was a zero-sum game. Those that are hodling at that time, are those who paid the final bill for all those that took profits.
If bitcoin gets adopted and goes to $300 000,- then that seigniorage will be totally randomly distributed over many generations of adopters. Those that were hodling, are those who are the final winners.
It must be totally unexpected whether bitcoin will die or succeed for the coins to become totally randomly distributed to hodlers, and their risk must be equal to their benefit or loss.
The argument with short onramp would lead to a few owning most is not valid either because the same is true for bitcoin since reward decreases exponentially.
No. I'm talking about the secundary market, which will of course become important in the end. The slow decrease of reward allows mining to become established before adoption is established. If everything were mined at once (preminted), there wouldn't be any mining incentive until adoption. The network wouldn't have been set up with high security.
Bitcoin is as bad with the distribution as any altcoin - only difference: the useless torture of the inflation is dragged out on a longer timeframe and prevents in this way an immediate success of the project, makes it volatile and unuseable as store for value.
I go by the premise that adoption will IN ANY CASE take many decades, IF it happens.
What do you do with your totally minted coin, with no mining incentive, during all those decades ?
The torture is necessary to obtain the totally random distribution of coins and seigniorage before adoption. As early adoption always has an advantage, they must go through several periods of total despair to get rid of their coins, and to redistribute them if you don't want that advantage to be systematic.
