Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but if I am right and you are indeed trying to associate yourself with those projects, I'll have to once again say you are not like them. Let's say that even a project allocate 30% of their token for team, these sums of fund are distributed and held by several people. As for your case, the entire 20% are for yourself. And worse, you've state that it is your right (rather smug, if I may give my personal opinion). The implication is, you held major portion of the token and you could easily sway the price to one side or simply destroy the entire price by selling them (i.e.: rug pull). Now tell me if you want to invest on a project that one specific person can manipulate its price at will?
I am not against the idea of a team have 20% (or more) allocation), it can be good thing because if it is utilized correctly, it can help project's future in form of persuading the team to work harder because the amount of money they earned (in fiat and banknotes) is tightly tied to token's price. But those token are released gradually, in stages, some even perhaps applies the model of monthly paycheck, and split to several people that'll minimize token centralization. What I don't see will work is someone (someone, not some people) granted such large control over token (and by it, its price).
About investing, farming, and staking, aren't the ultimate goal of those actions to gain more numbers on someone's holding/portfolio/balances? Thus, profit?
And no, the point I tried to propose here is not how it's quite unconventional to not doing presale, roadmap, etc. I don't even know what part of my long posts gave this impression. I think what I tried to say is quite clear, as I've repeated them several times. Departing from this, if I have to answer, then I think the first question should not be "how?" but rather "how much?"
Never meant to come across smug - just said we built a completed project and and the team is keeping 20%! I can totally understand why some people won't like that, which is fine too, its all good!
Overall it sounds like you are fine then with the distribution model, you just don't like the fact that the team is keeping 20%, especially since it is a small team. No problem, that is a perfectly fine stance to have. Cheers.
If I may reinforce my point, I am not disliking the fact that team has 20% allocation, if the team consisted of 100 person, I am more than happy to remove that concern from my mind. I am disliking the fact that the team is one person and he owned 20% that's "allocated" to be his payment and none were for project's future. He owned so much control over price that can swing prices whenever he want. This is not a good sign of investment no matter how we look at it.
But I am glad that you seems quite open minded and accepted this arguments cold headedly. In the end, are you planning to change this tokenomy or will you proceed with this 20%... payment?