I guess it depends on what you mean by fair. Fair as to the top 1% of Bitcoin stake holders, yes. Fair as to the bottom 99% of Bitcoin stake holders, no.
This technique could be used to create a coin that only rewards the bottom 99% of Bitcoin stake holders, and excludes the top 1% of Bitcoin stake holders. Would you consider that fair?
I wouldn't consider either of those options fair, as now the top 1% are completely left out of the distribution.
I would like to see the 1%'s 55% stake brought down to something closer to 1% than 55%, and the 99%'s stake increased to something closer to 99%. 1% getting 55% just doesn't seem right to me. If both sides met in the middle, I think it would be more ideal, but still flawed all the same.
Instead of implementing spin-offs on a cryptocurrency with a large wealth disparity (Bitcoin), I think it would be more fair to implement spin-offs on a more fairly distributed cryptocurrency. I think that would make more sense than playing with the percentages. For instance, Litecoin is an order of magnitude more fairly distributed than Bitcoin, there are a lot of other examples too. There just weren't enough people around when Bitcoin first came out to be distributed equally, and it results in a lot of early adopters. I think some of the cryptocurrencies being released today will have more equal distributions due to the amount of users cryptocurrencies have gained over the past few years.