Statement: Etherium, DOA and Circle are cronyism by other means

Cryptography knows no such concept as "early adopter" and has no inherit necessity to incentivize it. The early adopters of Bitcoin serve no purpose other than waiting to get rich. The only reason this doesn't morally gut the Bitcoin ideal is because the earliest adopter is gone, silent or dead. And I've heard within the Etherium community a misplaced sense of righteousness that their model is a more fair and democratic model. But the recent soft fork should make us question if their model isn't just rockefellerism in digital form. It was a soft fork bailout for the rich. Additionally their protocols financially rewards their own organization stacked with the authors, and they have now shown they have no qualms with protecting the wealthy.The other idealist platform I've heard from the Etherium and Circle communities is about building a society of "doers". The problem is they don't account for the necessity of free time to become a doer and how a decentralization of time is not possible without the leveling of wealth. Their affinity for basic-income is simply an attempt at rockefellerist philanthropy that indirectly obfuscates and protects the old idea of wealth at the top.When viewed under the influence of the history of capitalism their model makes sense: The wealthy have been the greatest of "doers". But they haven't understood that decentralization technologies completely remove the necessity for someone on the top to get things done.Until there is a cryptocurrency that deals with the relationship of free time, separation of rich and poor, and provides a moving difficulty model that influences how that wealth (aka time) is redistributed... then the righteous platitudes of the Etherium and Circle communities should be seen simply as cronyism by other means. via /r/Bitcoin http://bit.ly/297opRv