Here's some of the posts he's deleted reposted for your viewing pleasure:
(this one's from his sockpuppet Adam)
you really don't get it?
he can take off with the coins
it won't matter
he will have left us with his idea and we can implement it ourselves. we'll get our MasterCoins one way or another.
the coins are going to his address because he deserves them
you made your point quite clear over and over, thank you.
now, good day!
He can take off with the coins and it won't matter? What about releasing the source code? What about all the people whose money he would have stolen?
The idea alone is worth everyone sending him Bitcoins in advance in exchange for nothing? Actually it does matter if you steal people's coins.
He (or should I say you?) deserves them simply for writing a paper that says he should get the coins?
You still haven't answered my question. That's why I keep posting it. Tell us what will keep you honest and I'll stop.
Increasing supply to decrease price is the easy part. Decreasing supply to increase price is the impossible part.
Indeed even if you ignore the glaring issue with sending cash in exchange for nothing but a promise with no source code his economics are way off base. However that's totally irrelevant until the creator addresses the nigerian prince scheme he's trying to sockpuppet down people's throats.
Willet chose a valid way to bootstrap his idea.
It is not identical to the way Satoshi bootstrapped his idea, but as we all know Satoshi made quite a profit nonetheless.
Ripple/OpenCoin also choose a different way to bootstrap their idea, and as far as I know it's working well (they got investments from Google and Peter Thiel for one).
I believe Colored Coins was left in relative stagnation in the last year precisely because it lacked a good bootstrapping model that would pay for the cost of development (although it is seeing some increased usage today).
I summarized my thoughts on the matter on a blog post I just wrote about MasterCoin.
Having everyone send their money to the creator's personal address is not bootstrapping.
Both Ripple and Bitcoin gave out their coins for free to bootstrap their projects. Since so many people had them they began using them as money and they became valuable. This "project" is totally different in that it asks for money to be sent directly to the creator. This will not give it value in and of itself. This does nothing to "bootstrap". You're actually doing the exact opposite of what Bitcoin and Ripple did to bootstrap themselves.
How convenient that you posted a link to a blog post about how Mastercoin is "the new high yield investment". This whole thing stinks of a scam so hard.
Your proposal has so many flaws that you've refused to answer time and time again, deleting posts instead. That's a sure sign of a scammer, self moderate the thread to create an appearance of positivity. First of all we have to send Bitcoins directly into your pocket in order to get "master coins". That's the biggest one. You still haven't addressed that concern.
The other is that you don't understand how economics works. You can't maintain a fixed asset price against the market's wishes without losing money. You're proposing to act as a central bank to a fundamentally flawed system just because you know you'll be able to get a few suckers to give you real money.
There's absolutely nothing that will ever make Mastercoins valuable within your proposal. Just because people spent money on an asset doesn't guarantee that what they buy with it will be worth anything. You're making no goals, no guarantees, and still haven't even proved you are who you say you are.
Nobody should be treating this as legitimate.