I like blockafett and even think he has somewhat good intentions - see his involvement in the mintpal thread.
but the fun fact is that blockafett does not understand the implication of ninja/insta/fastmines.
distribution is not just about being fair (whatever that should be), but about the possibility to network in an economic sense. fast/ninja/instamines are massively hindering this process.
What the Dash supporters don't understand is that market cap as a naked number is not an indicator of success. They look at the charts and the market and think everything is just fine and the instamine doesn't matter.
It is in fact an indicator of nothing because you can get high market cap both due to good distribution or bad distribution, as we just discussed in the case of Bytecoin, possibly the coin with the worst distribution in history (okay there others that tie it). Those two cases are very different in underlying dynamics however.
I think anyone can understand that current distribution of a coin has a role to play in reaching a threshold that allows for a network effect to start. Reaching that distribution threshold can occur through many mechanisms though and at different stages of the life of a coin. The question should always be: What is the distribution today?
I believe coins get more distributed during up trends and specially towards the top, as that is where long term holders are willing to take profits and new people feel compelled to buy into the enthusiasm. To the contrary, during downtrends and specially close to the bottom you normally find accumulation by believers to be more likely.
If a coin is strong enough to survive several of these distribution cycles and is able to attract investment after it has gone through the first growth cycle of profit taking and redistribution by early adopters its chances for long term survival increase. In my case, I look at these cycles, one way you can tell if an asset is just being hold by a small group is if its not going through natural profit taking and redistribution cycles, there is low volume and it just seems stagnant at a price that does not seem consequent with the perceived fundamentals of the project.
Having said that, whether a high market cap is solid or not, (by smooth's criteria if the market cap comes from good or bad distribution) needs to eventually manifest in reality. Regardless of the opinion one holds on what is the real underlying situation of an asset, either it will continue to hold and grow or not. So the same asset can be represented to have good or bad distribution depending on who you ask, supporter or detractor, but reality can only be one and will always manifest itself in due time.
I think in the meantime the only thing one can do is look for ways to add value to the ecosystem and maybe monitor its progress in terms of adoption every certain amount of time. If an asset is doing consistently well and making progress lets say into its third year of existence, it is more interesting to me. Also watch those profit taking redistribution cycles and make sure there is development progress and the fundamentals remain strong. Just my 2 cents.
