there may likely be several additional weaknesses in your methodology and flaws that may come to light, based on a true attempt to update with new information and a larger (and probably more sophisticated audience).
So far, the criticism towards the methodology has been incredibly low standard. I have yet to find even one critic who understands what I have done (which should not be too difficult, after all it is written as clearly as I can manage, in English, in this thread!
)This is a 100% mathematic, parametrized, generic, model for modelling naturally occurring distributions. It can be wrong if the phenomenon to be modelled is not a good fit for the model (see thread that it is), or it can be off if the parameters selected are off (they cannot be too much off because of the interrelations between them, the possible range of parameters is very very small actually, even if we could not have any knowledge of the total number of owners (the only real unknown in the whole model since both the marketcap and the number of coins are knowns).
So I am not too scared of the sophisticated audience shooting holes in the model, since the assumptions they must subscribe to before attempting to criticise my model are untenable. If they have a better idea of the values of the individual parameters, they may be right as well as I, since the truth about those values remains unprovable forever, and the system is dynamic as well.