In the real world (I guess we are still in the real world on this forum), 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. People who establish IPOs and advertise for investment on the forum, are in effect, recreating the exact same system Bitcoin was designed to defeat. Some might argue there's a difference because the systems are Austrian in nature, and not Keynesian, but there's really nothing that prevents them from using either method, so the difference is non-existent.
The normal Bitcoin protocol was not designed to be issued for profit, or to have a central issuing authority. It was designed to be a trust free system where others work to acquire it through mining, and for any reward to be independent of the creator. If one acknowledges the previous points as fact, you can clearly see that any IPO has absolutely no place on the forum in the context of money supply creation. It is an evolution backwards in the technical domain of distribution, and in the ethics domain of corruption issues.
What's that you say? You claim 100% proof of stake systems have benefits? If you believe proof of stake is superior for coin dynamics and security, there's no reason you can't release a coin that uses normal PoW for distribution, then utilizes PoS entirely once all coins are mined. The idea that an IPO is actually required to make 100% proof of stake work is an outright lie. The term PoW/PoS hybrid exists for a reason and has already been accomplished. If you wanted to be extremely lazy and have a proof of stake client entirely separate from the PoW client, you could always release a crap coin clone, have people mine it, then trade units of the crap coin for shares in the 100% PoS client coin. Where does the need for an IPO fit into this anywhere? It doesn't. They should be banned.
The normal Bitcoin protocol was not designed to be issued for profit, or to have a central issuing authority. It was designed to be a trust free system where others work to acquire it through mining, and for any reward to be independent of the creator. If one acknowledges the previous points as fact, you can clearly see that any IPO has absolutely no place on the forum in the context of money supply creation. It is an evolution backwards in the technical domain of distribution, and in the ethics domain of corruption issues.
What's that you say? You claim 100% proof of stake systems have benefits? If you believe proof of stake is superior for coin dynamics and security, there's no reason you can't release a coin that uses normal PoW for distribution, then utilizes PoS entirely once all coins are mined. The idea that an IPO is actually required to make 100% proof of stake work is an outright lie. The term PoW/PoS hybrid exists for a reason and has already been accomplished. If you wanted to be extremely lazy and have a proof of stake client entirely separate from the PoW client, you could always release a crap coin clone, have people mine it, then trade units of the crap coin for shares in the 100% PoS client coin. Where does the need for an IPO fit into this anywhere? It doesn't. They should be banned.
Have you read what you typed? Bitcoin was not designed to have an issuing authority and was designed to be a trust fee system. You want to take this trust away by virtue of your OP post and YOU want to become a governor of what is allowed and not allowed. If this is/was to be done, then it's no longer a trust-free system. This is not with the spirit of Bitcoin by your own post/admission. You do know there is board correct? aka Bitcoin Foundation
You also state that it should by mined and independent of the creator. While maybe true in spirit but from a historical perspective the "creator" earned himself close to 1 million BTC by mining because there were few early adopter/miners. For all we know he could have a lot more under a different bitcoin address. So this too really doesn't stand. One thing is said while another thing is realized. In essence the creator had an IPO (of sorts) although it wasn't called that. Maybe you would call it a premine? Not really sure how to "classify" it per-say as it was the early days. However, Satoshi did surely mine a lot before the masses were involved so it was sort of like a premine or IPO to some extent compared to today's standards. Any way you want handle/call this he did come out with boat loads of BTC. I personally do not think this is BAD AT ALL. He had an investment in it. He mined it. He is rewarded for his abilities and time. (to bad he hasn't cash in the BTC we know he owns)
I'm not even going to touch the POS. You put a nice slant/spin on this and it would take a page itself to only touch on this. Not going here.
Fast forward 5+ years to today.
You seem to think all new coins should be done the same way Satoshi did bitcoin. You assume everthing he did is 100% correct and can't be improved upon. If that is the case, then we have no new innovations. Many of the newer coins have a lot of new innovations. It takes time for people to innovate (developers and business people both) and for this to turn into usable code. The people coming out with these innovations need to be compensated for their time in some way. For some it may be notoriety, and other for $ and some a combination of the two.
Now since we are 5+ years from the adoption of bitcoin we can't simply create a new coin and mine it ourselves and expect to come out with a nice % of coins as Satoshi did. We now live in the age of ASICs and huge mining rigs operations. There are just way to many rigs out there these days (not to mention ASIC devices). Not like the early times of Satoshi. An "original developer" these days has NO CHANCE of grabbing a nice % of their coin as Satoshi did unless they also run a HUGE farm. Most devs do not own large mining farms. They concentrate of code, not machines/rigs. So by the very definition of our present times a new dev is raped of any earning of there time/effort. They have no chance of earning $/BTC for their time.
For a current day developer/coin creator to put the required time into a new coin (coding, marketing, PR, etc) is a full time job in and of itself. Due to the dynamics of current times the only real way for this person to benefit in a way to support them doing this full time is to either have a premine or an IPO. If not the mining farms will take 99% (or whatever) of the coins leaving the coin creator with squat for their creation. Is this fair to you? How do you propose compensation to POW coin creators? Should it only be a hobby endeavor with no motivation for profit? How will this work out long term for the coin?
So to wrap up. In current times, I do not see anything wrong with IPOs or premines. It is up to each of us to find out, if it's in our own best interest to invest or mine a new coin. If we plan to profit or support a new coin then it is the responsibility of each of us to investment or time, resources or $ in it and not some "other" authority?
We DO NOT need some "authority" telling us what is and isn't allowed. I do not want China, USA or YOU telling me what coin is legit or isn't legit. A truly free enterprise (spirit of bitcoin/Satoshi) will quickly de-value the scam coins or copy cats with no new innovation vs those with some new innovation which have a fighting chance and will hold their own or prosper on the alt coin markets.
Really, you nor anyone other than Satoshi can tell us what is or isn't in the TRUE spirit of what Satoshi envisioned. Even so, if a coin deviates from what Satoshi planned, is this a bad thing? Can not and should not crypto coins improve as time goes on? Who is to say, what the correct way to this progression is? Surely not you or I! It is up to the masses to decide what is or is not.
I'll give you an example: HeavyCoin. This had both an IPO and a premine (double wammy). So by the OPs standard it would not be allowed here. However, this coin brings some nice innovations to the table. Many will not like it for their own personal reasons. That is fine. Other will like some of the innovations it brings. That too is fine. I don't want to be a shill for this coin (not my intention) and did not get involved in the IPO but do mine it with my small rig (60MH HVC hash rate) . Some of the IPO money is being used for PR and marketing. Some for reward bounties. This to me seems reasonable as any new coins needs proper promotion to become successful. While I may not agree with everything the devs do, in spirit I like the innovations and what this coin brings to the table. Even if the coin was to fail down the road, I see it as something of a game changer. Some of the innovations it brings to the alt coin market/sector will be copied (and maybe improved). I view this as all good.
Another example. I'm a very good programmer and also very good with finances and marketing, with a nice 6 figure income. I've been the CEO of 2 companies, CIO of 2 companies including an airline. Good crediential and have worked for fortune 50 companies and elite government agencies. If I were to leave my current full time job to support/create an ALT coin I would want to be compensated accordingly. It would not be a copy cat coin but would have many new innovations and what I'd consider game changers (new ways of doing things and improvements to current way of doing things). I'd want no less then $200K per year (probably higher) for this new endeavor for a minimum of two years. I'd also want at least one other person of the same caliber to join me on the base team. Factor in other costs and misc expenses (servers, computers, etc) and I'd want one million up front for a 2 year investment of my time. In this day and age to get true innovations it costs money. Where is this $ going to come from?
Who are you the OP to decide if my innovations are worth it to the community? I could be sitting on the ideas that blow bitcoin out of the water but you would never know because you would ban my coin (site unseen) because it had a premine or IPO (to cover my expenses). Is this a service or dis-service to the community?
The free-market would decide for itself but NO, you would want to ban it before it got to that point because my new "coin" didn't qualify due to the IPO, even if it had "game changing" algorithms.
Please stop trying to push your closed agenda on everyone else. Let the free-market determine what is valuable and what is not based on what innovations the coin brings to the table.
