As a full-early investor I of course want the access to this coin at launch. However, I hope that most of the early birds have more vision than just wanting to take all the coins.
If this coin is going to have a real chance, the maximum number of people need to feel that they have a shot at this. I now agree wtih Anon that 50% mining is likely the best balance.
I think some kind of proportional system as has been discussed is a nice balance. 2nd round investors know they are buying into a much more secured investment. So that 1.0 ratio early bird, vs .8 or .75 ratio for the second round etc. Makes sense?
1st round didn't really take a risk. Escrow was available. With that said, 2nd round and 3rd round won't take a risk either, so I guess there should be some advantage to taking the jump first, which does in a way help peoples resolve jumping in 2nd or 3rd. Even then, why not just have a longer ipo period instead? Why not give non-escrowed investors more percentage than escrowed instead of all this round-about business? Let them put in a higher cap (2btc?). They are the ones who really took a risk. Otherwise It's all somewhat nonsensical and arbitrary devices being used to justify giving larger slices to some and smaller to others. This is what I'm talking about with distribution not getting nearly the amount of thought pre-ipo as it ought to.
So, as the project becomes more "real" with whitepapers/working code, etc, more people will become interested. We can assume more people will invest in each successive investment period so their stake will be smaller. Cutting up the percentages is uneccessary and pointless. IF few invest in the third period, then just drop them into the second period with a slight dilution of those shares. There were better ways to do it, but you didnt think it through. Now the terms are the terms. Don't change anything, except if few invest in 3rd round, drop them into second round, adjust % accordingly and redistribute 3rd round percentage to mining.
I understand where you are coming from but I personally think its a lot more complicated. And the escrow service does not level the playing field in anyway. This is why.
1) I consider the escrow a 'safer' bet. But there is still risk always
2) Regardless of if you escrowed or directly sent, you choose to take BTC out of something else. For example, I would have invested in MINT instead with that BTC, MINT is up 2X what it was when I sent to EXO. Of course you could have lost value but that is not the point. The point is vital-funds are currently in stasis and no longer in Play. There is a tremendous cost to this. That IS the risk as I see it.
3) The massive amount of initial funding could entirely enable a much stronger coin to be produced. If I was the dev on a project like this I would consider changing my life immediately and growing the team in the face of such demand. If everyone played it safe and held back and just waited this coin might never come into existence. This is the same for many new coins.
4) Essentially from here out its a different game, the moment a white paper was produced I view the risk as essentially halving. So in this 'new' climate its easy to forgot what it looked like just last night.
