This is a very tough nut to crack.

 The major responsibility the team has is with initial ICO investors. That is how things are.
 ICO participants are the ones taking the biggest risk, and price is down like 95% for them.
 These are also the guys who can potential scale the project 10x in an instant.
 
 Like I wrote before, and as expressed by others already - it does seem a little unfair for miners. But mining is an open race. If you are mining GRFT to support it at a loss without selling, it's no different from devs & team coding without immediately liquid pay. You do it because you believe in the potential mid/long term.

 A sensible miner will mine for profit, and if he so chooses buys GRFT. This creates positive price pressure, and negative on competing algos.  
 Even if mining at a loss, the -ROI is far far less than initial ICO investors.

 Plus, if the team were to airdrop to mined addresses... how to separate the opportunist miner from the truly supportive one?

 I have to retract my intital statement. The ICO is where you commit your ideas and plans into action, backed by believers, who do their own due diligence, with zero to show for by the team up-front.

 From there on it's open game.