TPTB_need_war, I'm trying to understand what exactly you're attempting to communicate. Earlier you mentioned that it would be a good idea to "move more hardware value into [a] coin" and "give mined morsels" so that "no one sells and [the coins] instead circulate":
If you can move the worlds CPUs into your coin decentralized, you can beat Bitcoin because you can move more hardware value into your coin. Especially if you can give the mined morsels to be so small that no one sells and they instead circulate those morsels on a use-case that Bitcoin can't do.
Yet when it was later pointed out that 21 Inc. is doing exactly that, you now seem to talk negatively about the idea:
21 Inc...are going to give some incentive discounts and 25% share hiding all the complexity of mining from these dumb users who have no demand for mining and then try to teach them to use their Bitcoins to buy ringtones and upsell crap...
In one or two sentences, what exactly are you trying to say?
Users mining in an algorithm where pools are impossible is positive for decentralization of mining. Users possessing devices that mine without user control possible and which can not be stopped from sending the mining shares to the centralized server for the device provider is centralization of mining. Decentralization is permissionless freedom. Centralization is totalitarianism.
Note since PoW enables the latter case, PoW is no longer a viable choice for the consensus algorithm. The cartels will gain more than 50% of the hashrate virtually guaranteed because the efficiency of heat appliance mining is maximum and thus drives all independent mining (that isn't also a heat appliance) bankrupt.