Forgive me if I'm not reading this correctly but if you do a 1 for 1 swap at block 730k the digger would still possibly have 500+k coins as you do not know what he's doing with them once they move to polo or jd.
See a couple of posts up - I wasn't considering a "swap" at all.
I was considering having the initial distribution of the new coin be such that everyone has the same as the amount of already-moved CLAM they had at that block. Coins which hadn't moved since the initial CLAM distribution wouldn't feature in the new coin's blockchain.
And so "the digger" would only have the 38% of his 500k that he moved already, and the next generation of large diggers would have nothing.
The idea being that since some people want digging to stop and others want it left alone, we need a 2nd coin in which digging has stopped.
For those who want digging left as it started, there's CLAM. For people who want it stopped, there's the other coin.
Again, it's just an idea someone brought up. So far I've heard nothing against it other than that "it's a bad idea". But is it? And if so, why so?
I admit using the term swap was poor judgement I do know the people will hold both coins but is it fair to say this is just an idea? you have already taken a snapshot, you had mention a new coin weeks ago in JD chat "cloogs". It seems to me its more than just an idea you seem well prepared to execute. It does not bother me either way as free coins always fit in my business model perfectly but I can't imagine the average investor being thrilled about the idea.