What problem are we trying to solve?
Does fairness matter or is it something else? Lets use NXT as an example because many see them as an example of an unfair distribution (I personally don't accuse them of that). So a year down the road NXT has the best offering on the market, free transaction, 100% security, Carbon neutral, decentralized and every feature you've ever asked for. No one would care about the fairness of the initial fundraising. What we would care about is the fact that such a large percentage of coins is held in so few hands. Those few holders could cause wreak havoc on the market. NXT isn't alone in this regard. Just about every coin has just about the same issue, even bitcoin.
So, rather than burn/charity/fundraising for a single initial drop why not do a scheduled drop that happens over years. Have the devs set a monthly raise amount they want to get (or charity target). It shouldn't matter if they spend this money on their cats, development or charity because if the project is good more people will want to be involved regardless. Each month the number of people who want to donate & participate in the drop can register if they didn't the previous month. Those who register donate: monthly_ask/number_of_donors to the developers and get their monthly share of the coins. This could be modified to a share based system so that some could donate a smaller amount than others and get a proportionally smaller share. But everyone who wanted to participate could. Spread the drop over a few years and you'd have a far better distributed coin assuming the project was popular.
I think think this aligns the incentives of individuals and the entire ecosystem/coin much better than a single drop.
If this sounds familiar it's because it's pretty close to what Adam is doing with LTBc. As I wrote this I realized how LTBc is doing something very similar but with participation. LTB must have stolen my idea before I had it.
Proof of Burn and Charity go a long way in spreading distribution since there isn't the developers share, but they only go so far. Anyone who is mourning a loss, traveling through india, on a tech sebatical... is going to miss that drop and ability to participate forever. It's fine to say "**it happens, too bad for those people", but this means the entire network is much weaker. If there is an argument that people who missed the drop can participate on the open market I'd point you to just about every coin out, it's just not the case. If there were enough coins liquid for equalizing distribution the prices would plummet.
Also, it should be noted that proof of charity could be added to this model if there is no requirement for developer funds.
Just my 2 cents.
