no one in this thread is promising utopia. i am merely pushing back against assertions of bitcoin being "most equitable".
late entrants add value to networks, and some of that value accrues to early entrants. this is the same for any network. a publicly accessible ico is just as equitable as someone mining btc with their cpu on low difficulty.
once the price of the token goes up, the difference between someone who was invited there early versus found their own way in does not matter to the new adopters. the inequity is felt purely based on the token price difference rather than the security mechanic.
> no one in this thread is promising utopia. i am merely pushing back against assertions of bitcoin being "most equitable".
Fairly launched proof of work systems are a great deal more equitable than PoS premined ICO coins. This is just a fact.
> a publicly accessible ico is just as equitable as someone mining btc with their cpu on low difficulty.
No, absolutely not. Obviously someone has to get the ICO money. How on earth is that “just as equitable” as anyone in the world being able to use any old Windows computer to mine coins on demand. With proof of work, money isn’t being transferred from end users to developers, or their many Swiss foundations.
the value accrues to the network (20 million to 300 billion over the last decade or so), not the dollars that went into the ico sale. the ico dollars are a rounding error.
late entrants add value to networks, and some of that value accrues to early entrants. this is the same for any network. a publicly accessible ico is just as equitable as someone mining btc with their cpu on low difficulty.
once the price of the token goes up, the difference between someone who was invited there early versus found their own way in does not matter to the new adopters. the inequity is felt purely based on the token price difference rather than the security mechanic.