But... but... intsa...
We got good distribution, the darkcoin name worked wonders and kept it out of the hands of the real criminals
Acceptance for goods and services though, that's a bit of a doozy and no mistake, might take a fair bit of brain storming to work that one out :/
I'm just saying, this whole 'distribution' argument is a red herring and total hypocrisy by those who promote it. Ok, you need a few holders to get an asset started but whether it's 100, 100, 10,000 or a million is irrelevant on a point of principle. As long as the coins are available in markets they will be distributed - not on a equal basis but according to who wants them the most.
Across all cryptos, more coins got distributed by market crashes than ever did by 'proof of work'.
They are currently discussing this on another thread....
As far as markets are concerned, a very different perspective emerges than what has been asserted above.
Most non-premined, non-instamined, well distributed, perfectly launched coins go straight to zero. If not straight to zero, to zero in quite a short space of time. Of the top 10 market cap coins, more than half have 'complex' distributions to say the least.
Conclusion: Proof of Work is one way to distribute coins. But markets are ultimately a fairer mechanism of distribution because they price everything - not just emmission curves and electricity