@luckybit Yes, I get what you say about economies and have no well considered answer but I dissagree about A) pyramid schemes - they do work in practice just not in theory. B)Dilution - we need to have a way of reducing the stake of early adopters or we risk severe concentration.
I disagree with you on B)
. I don't think concentration is inherently evil. I think investment comes from people (not the government). I think in any industry it helps if you have experience and in our case we are some of the only people with the DAC experience to understand where money should go.
Ethereum raised a lot of money and will benefit the ecosystem. Does it matter to me if they got all that money from Satoshi Nakamoto himself or from 100,000 different people? Yes it does matter but it doesn't matter as much as whether or not innovation gets funded. I believe more innovation is being funded by Bitcoin early adopters and will continue to be funded far into the future which is the only way to grow a new industry.
I don't think the goal should be to redistribute people's wealth. The goal should be to encourage people to reinvest or to invest capital. There is never going to be economic equality because it's not possible according to physics (the earth and ecosystem have limits). Some resources are scarce and typically something is an asset because it's value increases over time.
Making it so no one can keep wealth doesn't make everyone else richer. All you're doing is redirecting capital assets from one ideology to another. It becomes political and in this case the early adopters may be the only people who understand the technology, who understand the vision for the industry, who know what a DAC is, who grasp the important concepts.
Setting all politics aside, there is no one else in the world with the unique combination of knowledge, expertise, interests, passions, philosophical understanding, at this time. The people who got involved first like it or not are either the most brave, or the most knowledgeable, and the best way to avoid concentration amongst these people is to build ways for them to diversify out.
In 5 years it may be us who are the most knowledgeable people. I agree with you that in 5 years it would be terrible if we are the ones still holding on to the majority of the shares. The ideal situation is for us to be able to keep whatever wealth we earned from this and diversify out as we crowd fund the new industry. If we don't own these industries then it will be owned by people who truly don't care about the technology or understand it.
Dilution does not reward any particular kind of investment or diversification. It's not proven that it's necessary. The whole idea should be that if the economy works as intended then there will be plenty of opportunities to cause early adopters to want to hedge their bets. Nxt for example or Ethereum.
So I do not support any dilution of wealth. I understand it's concentrated but I don't think the answer is to take wealth from people who know an industry and put it into the hands of people who care the least as proved by the fact that they are late adopters. If you're late to anything you shouldn't be rewarded for it.
I do support the idea of symbiosis though. I think the way to make wealth circulate is to adopt the bee pollination algorithm. We should pre-allocate a "community enrichment" fund where a certain percentage of shares will be awarded to people who participate in the community. This amount of shares should be capped.
In my concept of the bee pollination algorithm which I've talked about elsewhere the way it's supposed to work is that we have to look at the computing resources as the land. The decentralized apps or DACs as flowers. The users as bees in a swarm. The shares or crypto-equity as pollen.
Nature shows that you do have sustainable growth when all elements are in symbiosis. The symbiosis comes from the fact that the DACs themselves are in a symbiotic relationship with the users of it. For example if attention and early participation are rewarded with shares it benefits the DAC(flower) because it markets the DAC(flower) to the other users/bees in the swarm. The purpose of pollination is to spread the DNA of the flower (to spread the source code of the DAC technology).
The symbiosis comes from the fact that the DACs (flowers) support the lives of the users (bees) by allowing them to eat in exchange for advertising. They need each other to grow and thrive and that in my opinion is how we should be looking at how humans interact with DACs. Human beings should be able to make a living participating in a DAC (participation can mean many different things depending on the DAC).
So here is a list of points to remember.
1. Users are like Bees.
2. DACs are like Flowers.
3. Computation resources are like Land.
4. Source code is like DNA.
5. Shares/crypto-equity is like Pollen.
6. The Community of users are like a Swarm.
It all must be self sustaining, in symbiosis. Early participants should be rewarded because that is how it works in nature. Bees that discover the flower early on are rewarded with an abundance of pollen which they then take back to their hive but in the process they touch many other flowers which improves the gene diversity and reproduction of the different species.
In the case of users the DACs need the users in order to evolve. Users provide all meaning, all feedback, etc. DACs can pay the users for attention, for feedback, for improvements to it's source code, for advertising. As the users get more effective at doing this the DACs will take on greater utility, the value of the shares will rise, and everybody wins.An example of a flower pollination algorithm for further studyhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1312.5673