eMunie isn't a Proof of Stake implementation, nor does it use the BitCoin protocol, or have a fixed supply creation over time.....so I'm not sure how your argument applies comparing apples to oranges.
Or are you stating that eMunie shouldn't/doesn't need an IPO as an overall blanket categorization of crypto-currencies in general?
If that is the case, as eMunie has a dynamic inflation/deflation model, which in turn uses reserves available that it and only it has control of to mitigate large peaks and troughs over short time scale, how would you propose that we provide those reserves to the system in the first place without having a distribution of eMu beforehand?
Furthermore, without an IPO, how do you propose that eMunie escapes the lowly sandpit that all crypto-currencies currently live, and actually make it before the eyes, and into the hands of the people that Satoshi originally intended for everyday use of BitCoin?
5 years have passed and BitCoin is no closer to being used for everyday purchases broadly across the globe than it was 2 years ago. It is firmly stuck in the sandpit of rampant speculation, selfishness and greed, as are other crypto-currencies, the magnitudes of which make the regular financial industry look tame on a per capital basis; alas because of this no party/parties are working collectively to inform and educate the man on the street to achieve that original goal.
That was a pretty impressive side skirting of every issue. I feel like I'm talking to Bill Clinton himself. I have no ill will towards your project, but the original poster claiming you had a history of membership on social engineering/black hat websites doesn't seem to be kidding.
Let me go over this again because these are problems that Bitcoin solved, and Emunie seems to be evolving backwards with:
The entity who is closest to the creation of the money supply in the fractional reserve, fiat system benefits the most. In other words, central bankers issue currency for profit.Bitcoin was designed from the ground up to defeat that system, to make it so people can't profit off issuing currency. In the Satoshi model, he didn't issue any currency, he was not a currency creator, and there was no profit for him to make off his own invention that wasn't readily available to anyone else from adoption in using it.
You're set to make lots of money off this project, correct? So what we have is a guy attempting to replace the Federal Reserve with himself. Ok, you're going to say you're a less tyrannical version of the Federal Reserve, but when the entire goal of the project seems to be based entirely on personal profit, it's hard to take seriously as a "trust free" system. At any given time, why would we not expect some new, client update for you to make even more profit? Or maybe since it's closed source, you can just sell it all off to Goldman Sachs and they can charge people $10 a month to use it. As you can see, this is obviously not a trust free system when personal gain through issuing currency is a large part of the goal. On a fundamental level, it's actually hard to differentiate you from the bankers we already have, albeit with slightly more transparency.
I'm not a lawyer, but the Satoshi system seemed extremely cleverly designed to avoid having the legal system classify him as a currency issuer. Under legal framework, you, and all the other IPO currency people such as NXT and Ethereum, might actually be classifiable as "central bankers", which might subject you to a lot of laws or criminal proceedings you don't want to deal with.