I read the wikipedia entry for dogecoin (you were spelling it doDge) and can find nothing regarding the wealth averaging behavior I described in the original post.

Note that a "welfare coin" (that term is kinda trollish since "welfare" often has negative connotations, so it needs a new term) would exist in a capitalist system. There could be multiple welfare coins with different percentages of averaging over time, all competing on the free market against other coins that do not have this behavior. I think it might be healthier for society overall, especially seeing how professional day traders are doing second-level big trades and trickery and possibly insider knowledge/etc to win everyone else's bitcoins on the exchanges. Is bitcoin just increasing the wealth gap? Then the exchanges themselves are exempt from their own fees so they can trade at the 1 cent level and still make profit while nobody else can == an enormous centralization of money and money == power. Money/power go hand in hand and centralization of it is bad. What would happen if people in north korea had access to a 'welfare coin'? Even if the dictator obtained the majority of the coins unfairly, it'd even out over time, giving the people more money and thus more power.

Who WOULDN'T voluntarily opt into to welfare coin; Bill Gates types. They would prefer bitcoin where they can stay in the .00001 percent of the richest elite. However bitcoin would be COMPETING with welfare coin, so bill gate's bitcoin value would decrease as the majority vote with their dollars for the more fair welfare coin.

Maybe the algorithm would give more averaging weight for the mega rich and mega poor, so it'd be the bill gates types mostly giving their money to the very poor types. Different welfare coin forks would use different algorithms, all competing on the free market. This is like a fusion of capitalism and socialism; voluntary socialism.