If this guy thinks this is unfair, good thing he doesn't operate in the traditional securities world. 50 cents or so for 1 XBC beats the 20 dollars and up IPO share prices for major companies.
If you were pulling this stunt on Wall Street you would all be going to jail, starting with the owner of the exchange.
So what's up with destroying half the coins to exclude new investors and this grand council that holds all the power? That doesn't sound very crypto.
What do you propose happens to the remaining half then? Release a 3rd IPO right after the 2nd one to bring in more investors? That would be counterproductive to the point of releasing an IPO...the point of which is to give incentive to earlier investors. Releasing this other half of the coins this soon would screw over the IPO buyers, and everyone that's bought up to the time I'm writing this.
We are not excluding new investors. We are simply looking after the best interest of all current investors, because we've taken on a risk by putting money into something unproven and new, where other were not willing to put their own money. This second half of the coin supply should essentially, never see the market, and should be destroyed or put into cold storage indefinitely. I will explain in:
If there is to be a 3rd IPO of the remaining coins, we are faced with the problem of fairness for current investors, or fairness for 3rd IPO investors. The fairness for the former means taking into account the risk the initial IPO investors took (to buy 50btc worth of IPO of a completely new coin) and implementing this risk into the 3rd IPO price. Fairness for these 3rd IPO investors however, means they will be looking for the same point of entry as the other investors, thus meaning they would want the remaining half of coins sold via IPO, which will dilute the market shares. Furthermore, we are left with fairness for the people who have bought just recently, post-IPO; if these people are willing to support a coin post IPO, then other should too.
Thus, we are left in a situation where we screw current investors by diluting the market. Or we screw new investors by releasing the new IPO at higher than market prices (higher because many investors have bought post-IPO, so new IPO price should be as high as the highest price paid thus far).
This is why the remaining 47.5% must never come close to the market, at least not in the sense of another mass release/IPO/etc.