1/ i am seeing so many ICO projects where 20+% of the tokens go to founders and advisors. the whole point of tokens is to create *broad* distribution of an economic incentive to support network effects, not enrich a small group of insiders.
2/ to put it another way, for every dollar you contribute, 25 cents goes to the creators of the project. if i invest $100k, i am giving $25k to the team before they've even shipped a single line of code, in many cases.
3/ the incentives here are SO incredibly misaligned that i am having a hard time understanding how any ICO / token project can put forth these types of numbers and raise capital. in most cases, there isn't even a lock-up of any sort.
4/ people in crypto often like to use the lazy argument of decentralization to validate the need for a token. if a quarter of the network is owned by the people who created it, that's incredibly centralized. that's also incredibly dangerous.
5/ let's start to get a bit more critical about how we analyze these projects and their intended distribution mechanism. i think @blockstack @oceanprotocol @StellarOrg @earndotcom and a few others are aiming for wide distribution at the cost of personal profit.
6/ what models for token distribution are you seeing that *actually* support the creation of decentralized, widely distributed networks?
