Leaderboard

Of the proposed options i say 1 or 4. The coins should be destroyed, and that it takes time to reach 100 mil is good. To be honest i think 100 mil is too much either way and its not a good number. 28 or close to is much better and closer to Bitcoin. But it has to work for the miners too.

We are now many forum contributors and long time supporters that strongly believe that the foundations coins should not be released into circulation and the miners, if the timeframe is 10-100 years then fine but not in a quick pace as it will just crash the price, we dont need freicoin priced at 1 satoshi and it would not be fair to current holders of Freicoin. What freicoin need is something to support growth of price and to be very attractive to their speculators. My personal opinion is that the foundations coins of 80% should be locked in a blockchain time contract and that demur

Maybe kick the can down the road a bit, if its possible? Move the Foundation coins to a time locked contract, spendable after certain day and/or require softfork? If not moved within certain amount of days/blocks -> destroy/redistribute/whatever. Theres some neat technologies being built and getting realeases in the not-so-far-distant future, so could be useful to have the foundation coins for some use cases which might come available later. From what I understand, sidechains / drivechains will bring a lot of new possibilities for distribution mechanisms and other logics

as @Rik8119 said option 2 is not fair to investors.

Well if we want to compare it to Bitcoin - which does not make sense IMHO - i ask myself what the community would say if the core devs would decide to increase the coin supply by 5? I can not imaginge atm that a social purpose can be decentralized. BItcoin f.e. is not decentralized either. 1m is owned by Satoshi and there are a handful pool and a few groups of devs ruling the bord. Woergl f.e. was the most successful freigeld currency and they used it to pay for social infrastructure. And IMHO it is the only reasonable purpose to redistribute money to the poor. I dont really see

I vote option 1. I will share what I am thinking: I was never very comfortable with the idea of the foundation, because to me the idea of Bitcoin is using clever mathematics to avoid politics. A foundation picking winners and losers is the definition of politics, and I wasn't comfortable with being in that position. There was some thought to use the foundation coin to come up with a provably fair way to distribute the foundation coins with a "faucet". But in my opinion this would take a level of mathematical innovation on the level of Bitcoin itself, and we are very unlikely to solve

Vote for option 1.

Ill go with Option 1