Re: Wouldn't it be more fair if the bitcoins were shared equally?
How will you deal with cheating? How will you deal with the problems that centralization brings?
Decentralize what can be decentralized. Only centralize what must be centralized, such as internet address space, and maybe approval of new versions of the software. If one were to make an elaborate protocol, it might even include several government- and privately owned identity providers, with strict checks and balances, and ultimately a market based approach to who is trusted and not. (Think ratings agencies and auditors checking the inner workings of the companies, publishing their reports about them, and the market deciding who they consider most trustworthy.)How will you deal with the fact that the conformity of all individuals to this system will ultimately be used against them?
Well, unfortunately, the reliance on biometry or other unique property means that there must be some tie to the individual. Sure, it could be a one-way hashing function just to check that you're not the same person as somebody else, so you couldn't easily go back from hash to individual, but even so that ability to tie one person to a coin makes it only half-anonymous, like other *coin forks. (Say, somebody forcing you to use the biometry and hash to check if you did a particular transaction that somebody didn't like. Even an unbreakable hash doesn't protect you from that. You could only try to claim that it was a hash collission.)Besides the technical difficulties mentioned above, and most importantly, what will you do about the fact that all the money you distributed fairly will very rapidly consolidate in few strong hands? (Consider free voucher privatization during Catastroika.)
Coins will indeed accumulate to those who provide a useful service/product over time. Isn't that what we want? The slight inflation caused by population growth, an the fact that those who provide services also have expenses, will help prevent excessive hoarding. Saving is fine, but if one guy ends up with 99 percent of the currency, it might as well be his used underwear. Or he could be the king and declare it to be the fiat currency of the land. 
You have no shoes, I give you a "token" which is worth exactly 0, since you can't exchange anything for it. Someone comes to you and offers you shoes. You are glad that you got rid of that useless token. After "the emerging elite" collect enough wealth to have the incentive to develop an ecosystem around this coin, its value increases rapidly and you begin calling "unfair".
No, they actually provided somebody with things of value for those coins. That's fair - to the guy you gave a free token to. Only communists or greedy entitled people* don't agree with that. What would be unfair is if it turns out that these tokens are actually worthless. Then those "rich" people who accumulated them by providing value to other people have gotten a raw deal. They've been paid in Ponzi scheme stakes.So it's the ones who provide services and sell real currency for your worthless token that are getting scammed. And because they don't want that kind of unfair treatment, they don't won't buy into your ecosystem. Sure they'll accept free tokens, but drop them like a hot potato.
*: I know, redundant.