Yes there are other changes some people request, but finishing the distribution is the big issue for most, personally, I wouldn't care if the distro was finished without more airdrops, the issue for me is the uncertainty of having dev control such a large amount, and not knowing how long until until the distro will be finished. Once the distro is finished the market is free to operate, but with 22% in dev hands for an unknown length of time ... that kills the market mechanism for price discovery, and that's not good for adoption.
If tony announced he was going to finish distro in 6 months I don't really care of the method, I would prefer airdrops because it would instantly get people buying BB and that gets 'noticed', but if he chose another method and actually completed the distro soon I would be happy. Tony is a great dev, like most I really like this project, I want it to succeed.
You do understand that everything you said in previous paragraph, zeros out this compliment? Let me translate how it sounds: "you are great dev and I like your project, but I think you don't want what is best for your project because I think you are going to misuse the last 22% of the funds."
I just can't understand, what is it so difficult to understand that cancelling of Bitcoin airdop was because of understanding that it won't bring the expected adoption and continuing that would have not been best for the project. Undistributed funds don't devalue your share, it is for fair distribution that is as wide as possible, the more people get the bytes, the better it is for everybody.
It doesn't matter what I think, or you, we can see the judgement of the market, byteball dropped from top50 to outside top200, that is the market voting with their self interest. This is not personal, I can definitely compliment Tony for some things, disagree with him on others, and there is no inconsistencies, BUT it is a fact that byteball slipped a lot down the rankings, I see a connection with the distribution uncertainty.
Tony doesn't need sycophantic yes men, people questioning his decisions on the distribution are not necessarily motivated by greed, some are, but some see wasted potential , and the evidence is the coinmarketcap ranking.
Oh god, the CMC ranking again - the most meaningless metric ever (for coins under 1b marketcap). Create 100 shitcoins with higher marketcap and you kick somebody out of top 100.
What I see is that many altcoins have lost over 90% since the ATH and many new shitcoins were created during last bull-run. Did they also changed their distribution methods that caused them to lose over 90%? If you keep telling that it was because of the distribution and you keep telling others that it was because of distribution then after the while, it becomes the reason, no matter if it's true or not.