+1
I was all on board with this when I started the lengthy process of getting ready to burn 1 BTC but after detailed research and thought, I came to the same conclusion. Why not wait 20-25 days until things are easy, stable, and much more "evaluated" by the community and still get 1000 XCP at that point?
If I may, I do think the intent was to release a working protocol and to encourage people to use it -and Not to create something where someone who was watching the forums more intently, or was tipped off as an insider for example, could get in to merely multiply their money at the expense of others.
I am aware that most people browsing alt-currency forums may very well be people looking to "make money out of thin air" if you will, on account of being early investors in something (having missed the early investment into bitcoin per say), without much caring as to what something does, or whether it offers any kind of potential benefit to others, or mankind at large. While this approach may in fact make a select number of people rich, nevertheless I think it is ultimately detrimental to the acceptance and development of digital monetization and finance in the broader sense.
The financial component of a project is a critical component to its success. How much XCP you allocate for developers and early adopters will impact how much free time (and will) these individuals have for contributing to the project. People do not _only_ labor for things because they are cool or neato, though that is a large component of success in this realm.
Ideally you want a lot of stake holders, with a decent stake size, who will support the project and help drive it forward.
If these individuals are drowned out by huge late-comer investments from "dumb-money" (e.g., VCs and other large-scale late comers) then your community is essentially squashed because their stakes tend towards zero.
Thus, from a project success perspective, it seems quite important to incentivise/reward the founders, developers and early adopters over late comers.
To be fair, I see what you're trying to do by levelling the playing field over time, so that no one screams premine. It's a nice idea and it could work, who knows. However, I do not think it is a necessary risk to take with such a great project. It is abundantly clear, based on the content of the code I have reviewed, the functionality already available and the description of your project, that your project does indeed have something behind it and is no a premise scam.
What I can't understand is how you'll build a vibrant community if some large VCs or institutional investors come along on day 28 and inflate the currency supply 10x.
If the burn period were longer, then I would agree with you. However, since the burn period is only a month, the distinction between "late-comers" and "new-comers" is pretty slight.
Also, even though Counterparty is nearly feature-complete, we still run the risk of alienating later investors by rewarding early investors disproportionately. Indeed, I would say that the the more successful the project is in the long run, the more likely it is that people will accuse us of having premined in the future - even though XCP cannot be mined, at all.
The situation you depict regarding VCs and institutional investors is perhaps a concern, though I think not a great one. Usually institutional investors and VCs have to do long, strenuous research on a project before deciding whether to invest in it. Moreover, VCs and institutional investors tend to have much more modest investment goals than those involved in Bitcoin, so even if a few of them invest during the burn period, others will not be deterred from investing after the burn period, and early investors' XCP will still increase in value.
This is the exact address 
