Faith will be restored if someone can build a logical argument as to why Brownies are fair and will remain so. Whilst trying to answer this please keep in mind the quote from DataSecuirty Node above. I'm pretty sure if you read what he says you'll quickly realise that Brownies are not practical and cannot ever be fairly distributed. So this means at the very least sharedrops should be refused/not encouraged by BM and Xeroc and other Brownie holders.
BROWNIE.PTS never was about a "fair distribution" .. nor did @rune in the makerDAO sharedrop discussion ask for a share distribution. In contrary (IIRC), he asked for participants in his project ans asked for "mailing list".
This is BTW .. also why BTS was distributed 50/50 among AGS and PTS .. PTS was created to have a fair (in terms of "everyone could mine") distribution and AGS for those that understood the concept and wanted to donate to fund BM's goals.
IMHO: <<----
sharedropping is not about having a "fair" distribution but to target a community or subcommunity that you feel may fit your purpose!
A different thing is (though) when you want to use the Graphene tech that was developed using AGS/PTS funds .. In that regards you would thing about PTS/AGS donators to see them selves as "investors" and I can totally understand that. For that reason, there was (and still is) a social consensus that states that however wants to use that tech can only gain our support if they sharedrop at least 10%/10% ontop of AGS/PTS holders (upgraded some months ago to be BTS holders only)
But .. please ... keep in mind that some projects may decide to not use the graphene tech (i.e. MakerDao) and they are free to use whatever "mailing list" they want to use.
BTS would be a rather wide audience, BROWNIES would be a rather active but small community, DOGE would be funny clowns .. you get my point ..