Considering Satoshi owned 10% of Bitcoin, probably not, though it does create a bad situation. On the other hand, there are some technologies where one holder controlling too many tokens could break privacy features.
Ten percent seems like a disproportionately high amount for someone to own if they develop the thing in the first place, but having manually distributed coins on a network for over 2 years I can readily see how a 10% shareholding might come about in the normal organic growth and development of this technology.
I have consistently sold coins to keep my holdings reasonable, and also limited the amounts we will sell to those investing so that we can make sure that we benefit as much as possible from the network effect.
If you look at many rich lists an approximately 10% max holding appears to be commonplace - but individuals with that many coins would be able to manipulate the markets freely, however this does not seem to put off investors and these coins are often very successful.
Do you think an oligarchy is necessary for driving demand and value appreciation?
Obviously PoS coins pay an "interest rate" to incentivise people to hold onto them, and masternode networks allow mining in proportion to coin holdings. Both of these things incentivise people to acquire an increasing stake. I ask because Carboncoin does not have that, our focus being on raw capital growth.