So go from a premine of nominally 1% to 22+% and commit to giving up control of 50% of network control (except probably at least one or two controlled by foundation which is de facto same people running network now). Wow. Such decentralization!
22%?
The breakdown is now as follows:
67,2% Distributed, of which reserved (in % of total supply)
1% Tony (BZUAVP5O4ND6N3PVEUZJOATXFPIKHPDC)
1% First 100M users (TUOMEGAZPYLZQBJKLEM2BGKYR2Q5SEYS)
32,8% Undistributed (MZ4GUQC7WUKZKKLGAS3H3FSDKLHI7HFO), of which reserved (in % of total supply):
20,5% Several distribution methods (cashback, attestation rewards, textcoins, etc.)
11% Foundation funding (spent over 36 months, but hopefully lasts much longer than that)
1,3% Long term motivation plan (we don't want these foundation members to give up)
Decentralization of 11 out of 12 witnesses was always the plan, but it's not as easy as it seems. Neither is mass adoption. To achieve our ambitious goals we need a foundation with enough funding to make it happen. In the article we try to explain our reasoning behind this decision. If you have any questions or other remarks please share them.
You're correct, nominally 12% not 22%, but even so I don't think it's possible to have a legitimate currency where one entity is controlling 10% of the entire supply. This is a major issue for zcash and others, imo, and for a long time even cast a shadow over Bitcoin wrt Satoshi estimated to hold 5% of ultimate supply (though I think it's fairly widely believed that those coins will never move now).
Even 1% as originally proposed is massive. This would be equivalent to someone holding like $50 trillion USD. Five or ten percent or higher is just impossible to be taken seriously as a legitimate worldwide monetary system. I know it might not seem like it based on the mania of last year, but imo there little chance such a centralized system can be seen by most as anything but a money grab or Ponzi.