There is no ideal distribution. We all know what has happened with the Nem-sockpuppet-System.
The System of tonych is relatively good if you compare it with others.
What I would do in addition, even if it doesn’t add a lot of value, making a cap, so that one BTC-address doesn’t receive more than 1% of all coins (or even lower)
Whales probably split their funds but at the very end they don’t know how much they need to split (They don’t know how much 1% is, if tonych keep the numers secret and open them just after the distribution process)
It’s also an additional instrument to avoid whining and screaming when the distribution process is over, like it always happen here and everyone here is sick and tired of.
Example”Look, there are 3 whales that got 25% of all coins, Byteball has a really unfair distribution”.
At least this sentence could avoided if you insert a maximum cap of probably max 1% for each BTC-address.
I agree, one should compare the system with the others available, rather with some idealistic TheAbsoluteGood.
Regarding capping, as you say, it is easily subverted by splitting the funds. I'm going to run the claiming phase as transparently as possible and going to make the numbers public to track the progress.
I strongly believe that the best way to achieve a balanced distribution is by bringing in as many people as possible, both whales and regular bitcoin holders. When we have a whale, the best way to dilute his share is by bringing another whale on board (or a crowd of average Joes). This dilutes your share too, but remember that the value of the coin is proportional to the
square of the number of active participants (Metcalfe's law), that's why you ultimately win.
