These are all fair points, but in answer to your question, yes I do think it unfair to revoke the offer of free coins after a period of time. In this instance, it's only being done because the price has been hammered and people don't like the concept of one person having this much influence over the price, but let me ask this: if all the coins being dug were by individuals (as was intended originally) and the price was this low, would everyone still be going on about cutting off the digging supply? If yes, then you're violating the "free and fair" way the coins were intended to be distributed, and if no, then it seems you're just reacting to the fact that you don't like that the potential supply and actual supply are nearing parity when you got used to the concept that they never would. And if that's the case, then I go back to the argument that the potential supply has always been known and should have been a factor in your risk analysis. The fact that it wasn't is essentially a case of taking on too much risk and now seeking a bailout when that risk exposure turned on you. Wasn't the promise of crypto that such banking manipulations wouldn't be possible? If you could speak a little to this notion, I'm interested to hear. I can be convinced if the argument is compelling, but right now, this appears no different than a case of special interests changing the rules for their benefit, like the banks do all the time.