I always thought that the only way to change this is for Evan to quit this project and start another one with a clean distribution and conscience....
Thoughtful remark. As it happens I think Satoshi should have just "quit" and start again with a properly fungible 2-tier network that would have saved us all a lot of time and effort. While we're at it - all those perfectly launched coins with nice emmission curves that had 100's of thousands of dollars invested in them and then went straight to zero could also ideally just have "expired" prior to ripping off their holders.
Although there is some tiny semblance of merit to what your proposing within the incestuous confines of bitcointalk, be advised that the general public 'out there' regard all of crypto as 'instamined'. Nothing to do with stumbling starts - just that nobody told them about it and there's about 7 billion of them and about 5 thousand of "us" (if you're lucky).
If there's one thing thats for sure, it's that if any of these projects make it out of the "nursery", it won't be the one with the 'perfect launch'. It will be the one that best addresses all the challenges that face a fledgling monetary token in a way that markets evaluate as having a future viability.
As for distribution - if you think that a mining emissions curve has a hope in hell of having anything to say about a "clean distribution" in a market of this size and age then I urge you to have a go at sweeping a porch in a tornado. It might help you to put a few things in perspective. Over the last year anyone that wanted to has been able - and still can - to pick up practically any amount of alt coin for peanuts. Emissions curves are one route to distribution but thats all they are. Markets are another and are equally viable, if not more so, because they price in all that has gone on in that coin's history.
If cryptos ever get anywhere near the levels of valuation and liquidity that the holders with their tongues hanging down to the floor are anticipating, then emissions curves may become far more important, obviously. But the idea of ditching as promising a technology as this in its early stages when there is no other competitor anywhere near it would have been sheer idiocy - for developers AND investors.