null the top 1 to 2 % of btc wallets from getting BB and do random day snapshot would solve all of these issues or not?
One issue is that exchanges and ICO fundraisers hold coins that don't actually belong to them. So far it looks solvable. Any other issues?
....
Can you simply explain why you are reluctant to null the top 1 or 2 % of BTC wallets? I see no reason to go to all the hassle of asking exchanges and ico devs to be fair and distribute the BB ...when we can just take them and BTC whales who already super rich out of the equation.
I mean if you are in the top 2% of BTC wallets can you really not afford to buy some BB if you choose? How many BTC do you have to be in the top 2% at this time??
You get the wide distribution but it will be seen as more fair to the crypto community.
For sure this is your thread and for now you are not getting much criticism over rewarding the super rich with the bulk of your coins since people kiss up to the devs in their own thread. However I can GUARANTEE you if this project takes off that will be the MAIN criticism that you will get going forward. All you will hear in later years is this was the coin that rewarded the already crypto rich. Unfaircoin.
I would even suggest nulling the top 5% of wallets or where ever has the most effect on the distribution curve.
Look at coins that can be seen in any way as being unfair lately... this could be seen as tantamount to a huge premine by BTC whales. It looks a great project I would just hate to see it tarnished with that brush. Imagine the manipulation accusations especially if exchanges don't play ball.
It just seems sensible to null the top x% of wallets and do a random snapshot. Unless there is a good reason not to that I'm not seeing.
It is another issue you are raising. Seems like you want to exclude (or significantly restrict) from the distribution all those who are rich, not just exchanges and ICO funds, but all those who are in the top x% percentile of BTC balance per address. Your reasoning, it seems, is "just because they are already super rich". While I do not agree it is enough of a reason, I also try to avoid a situation when a large percentage of bytes are owned by a single person, as this would be not a healthy decentralized financial system.
Unfortunately all well-intentioned attempts to achieve a more even distribution by capping the balances per address or nulling the top x% are not only not bullet-proof, they can even have the reverse effect. All these restrictions are gameable, one can simply split a big balance into many smaller ones and mix the coins in multiple steps. It can be speculated how much they really want to go at such great lengths, many probably won't, but even if a few do game the rules, we'll arrive at a system with a few mega-whales (which are not readily identifiable because they hide behind thousands smaller addresses) when we could have a system with dozens of smaller whales if we didn't put the restrictions in place. Is this what you want?
So, it seems, the best way to counter a big stake of a single whale, is with the stakes of other whales.
I am very keen on this project. It looks very interesting. I have a reasonable amount of BTC and although not a whale at all as it stands I will get a reasonable share of BB.
The thing is you are going to make this coin a pariah project with the current method of initial distribution along with rewarding your competition with a huge amount of your coins and letting them dump them to fund their own different projects?
Most people attracted to alts and crypto in general are those that do NOT like the enrichment of the already super rich.
With a random date snapshot even one taken now.. it will be a trivial to devise a method for a far fairer form of intial distribution based upon BTC ownership. Simply giving the vast bulk of BB to those that own the vast bulk of BTC is a non-starter.
I am only trying to help you get this project in the best possible position to go forward. Give people any excuse to call it a scam or unfair and they will do so. Make it fairer and see a much brighter future.
In fairness to you I would change it to 3-5% retained for yourself and for future development. 1% seems far too small compared to what devs of icos and even POW coins are retaining. For something of this standard I think most would see 3-5% and a more sensible amount for continued and on going development. Of course that's just a suggestion.
