Quote from: oventu on Today at 06:39:40 PM

The most difficult problem is how to distribute coins, and I think your
evaluation mechanism will end up as a ponzi scheme or some mechanism where
I need to pay a fee to some initial, powerful group of people that hold the
most coins, otherwise I will not get my money for my good deeds.

It is quiet possible and I can not guarantee this will not happened at all. In order to nullify this scenario, I proposed multi communities system. What happened if we have thousands of different community with different mechanisms for governing, money distribution, etc?
No one is forced to join to or leave a particular community. People can join to communities that they trust. As soon as smelling “ponzi” or other scams, people will leave it and devaluate their money.
Here I explained it in more details. Redefining “exchange rates” to “excellence indice” in “democracy term”
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5303276.0
BTW, there must exist one particular community. The initialization community which I establish it. The first mission of this community is developing that software. A free and open source software that provides our needs. And here is the place that no one can cheat or scam. Because it is pretty clear what are the goals. After releasing the software this first community can disappear or can keep continue. It is up to community members and the community achievements.

Quote from: oventu on Today at 06:39:40 PM

I think the social system will look like feudalism as initial contributors have more of a say.

Partially true, and that’s why systems are improving and extending. First adapters/contributors burden more risks, so they most be rewarded more. Without these incentives early movers won't exist, and without early movers late movers won’t exist.
A moral thought is how much “more” rewards is fair? While the answer about this question is different from person to person (and depends on her/his favorite ideology), I prefer to follow different road.
I implicitly admit this risk reward must not be too much, meanwhile I suggest to “reduce the risk amount to near zero” and “encourage more and more people join to this adventure”, thus more people will be rewarded. The outcome of this strategies won’t be a feudalism, oligarchy or clans that control system, instead will be collection of thousands different social groups which are formed based on some common interest. They divide power in between. These social groups are participating in governing the system but they have no hierarchical structures. It will be like two dimensional shapes (different by size and color) that may have something in common or some are totally separated islands and non of them has superiority on the others.
This is my “prediction” and “will” for the first community that I establish. It may/may not happen, But as I told before the first mission is developing the free software and preparing the infrastructure. Later, based on this infrastructure, others can make more excellent communities and monies.
This free and open source software must work totally decentralized, nu-censorable and un-stoppable. Only then we can hope the emergence of great cryptocurrencies that address Bitcoin’s shortcomings.

Quote from: oventu on Today at 06:39:40 PM

Similar to all the middle-men we have today (banks, politicians, consultants helping with regulation), there will be lots of fees to be paid to be able to compete, and the people controlling access to good deeds will be profiting.

There will no group that controlling access to good will, instead there will be community members that following community principles (whatever is), and as long as community follow its rules and core values, the community grows and more happy population has.

Quote from: oventu on Today at 06:39:40 PM

Capitalism already has a pretty good system for benefiting those that provide value…

That’s not true! The current mechanisms and incentives are flawed. This system main rule is produce just for benefit and not because of someone’s need, and allocate it to whom pays more and not who needs more! And even this simple “free market” rule is not respected by the governments - either US, Russia or China-.
My proposal is a remedy for this situation, where in first place, the software is “product”, “means of production” and “allocation” simultaneously. The goal is communities in which community members decide “what to produce”, “how to produce”, “for whom to produce”, and “why”.
In first step we ship our software, and later we can produce almost everything in a really decentralized manner. I hope and strive for at least one of those thousands future communities realize this system.

Quote from: oventu on Today at 06:39:40 PM

problem of ganging up on the small man and extorting a fee for participation like I fear your proposal will lead to.

Sorry but I didn’t understand this part.