Over time the staking overwhelms the initial distribution. But it takes a long time for staking to have any serious effect on the relative size of that undug yellow section.
What you don't know is how much of that yellow section actually exists, and how much would ever be dug below prices that would make everyone here very happy anyway.
The pattern we've seen, including this dig, is that higher prices have coincided with digging. It isn't a perfect correlation, but it is pretty significant. The more time goes on and the more digs there are, the more the existing undug supply is annealed such that much of it likely won't ever be dug without much higher prices (if at all)
The other issue is that this ignores the original purpose of the undug CLAMs, which is distribution. That yellow section represents what is probably a million to a few million people (no one really knows the number of crypto users). The positive effects of those people becoming aware of CLAM and some of them joining the CLAM ecosystem is potentially just as dramatic as the potential downside of those coins being dug and sold, if not more so. It doesn't need to be viewed as an enormous scary yellow monster. It could also be viewed as an enormously promising opportunity.
Zero sum thinking can be incredibly misleading, and harmful
EDIT: I see SuperClam has edited in some similar comments. Bravo.
Entirely "from-the-hip" guess-ti-mation:
I expect BTC is
much more deflationary (especially during this earlier period of time) than anyone realizes.
I expect a solid quarter of the 'undug' are either lost or will never be bothered to claim.
This is obviously a nearly worthless guess - it could be as much as 75% or as little as say 3-5%.
You could probably get a much clearer picture by charting coin-days-destroyed vs. coin-days-in-existence in the BTC network.
This leaves 75% of it in the air, of which various amounts will belong to larger claimers and the rest to smaller claimers.
I think dooglus has good reason to be concerned with such a large amount "in the air".
The question is: is that concern sufficient to change the 'dig' process?
Possibly.
Possibly not.
And, that is exactly what CLAMour will hopefully help to reveal.
How much support is out there for such a proposal?
Without such a proposal, I intend to move forward over the coming months with a more comprehensive package that solves a host of issues, such as the fee structure, incentives, etc.
Digs would likely be tangentially affected by those changes; simply due to the fact that they make up such a large "bloat" on the chain, and represent what would possibly be considered "lost", or at least expensive, outputs.
If the change was to meet a high threshold in a soft-fork - we would have our long-term 'solution'.
Until then, we will give CLAMour a chance to inform our debate.
Hopefully in the end we come out of this with a whole host of positive changes and a polling system that is instrumental in helping us navigate these types of decidedly human problems.
.
