This has nothing to do with "egalitarianism".   I don't want everybody to "have equal income" or some silliness of that kind.  But if a monetary asset is to be introduced as something new, there is absolutely no reason why it should go into the hands of some more than in the hands of others, because any difference on that level is seigniorage, and gives value "against no economic production" to some over others.

Of course, an initially equal distribution of a monetary asset will not stay that way, but that doesn't matter.  At least, there has not been someone having had seigniorage from it.  Nobody has won anything by such an initial distribution, and that is how it should be.  That you can gain value by trading the asset against economic production, and accumulate wealth that way, is OK: you obtained it by providing value.  But you should not have gotten "value for nothing" which is exactly what seigniorage is about (and what most of crypto speculation is about).

And this is one of the cases where the word "entropy" doesn't have its place, honestly.  We're talking about how a token system that serves to transport value should "start out".  There's no reason why some should have more tokens *against no value* than others.  The only thing that makes sense in a monetary asset is the *transport* of value.  But the *creation of tokens* means that this is a non-equilibrated "transport", which is contradictory to the idea of the system that value only goes in closed circles through the system.  The best way to do this is by an as uniform as possible initial distribution, so that the "value out of thin air" is equal for everybody, and hence doesn't represent, in the end, any value.  From that point on, the tokens can transport value in closed circles.
This has nothing to do with "ignoring outcomes" or "ignoring states" and hence, has nothing to do with "entropy".