I've been thinking about this for a while, particularly with bandwidth as the scarce resource. I don't <i>quite</i> grok the connections between the crypto aspect, the stock aspect and the currency aspect.<p>The problem is that (the way Naval treats them) each of the main variables <i>seem</i> arbitrary, but could easily determine whether the economy you create is viable.<p>> <i>Pre-mine or early-mine Appcoins and keep some non-threatening amount.</i><p>In Bitcoin, though the system itself is "trustless", participants <i>trust</i> that they are all treated equally according to the protocol & open source code.<p>In the case of a startup raising funds, you wouldn't get the same sense of altruism. The incentives are not aligned for the major players: the startup founders, the protocol developers, the other coin owners/shareholders and the miners.<p>Should an arbitrary pre-mined amount be set (as the founders' equity), and simultaneously be <i>non-threatening</i>, what is to stop the network from invalidating the pre-mined amount at will?<p>If it were instead <i>threatening</i>, why would miners be interested in spending compute power?<p>Naval also writes of supporting the open source developers with transaction fees. Unlike the commodity on which the coins are based, these are not easy values to calculate.<p>Certainly there are a lot of possible new models, and autonomous corporations are very exciting. I just don't see how you can <i>add</i> a founder-controlled, for-profit startup to the other players in a crypto currency ecosystem (the miners, the non-profit developer foundation and the coin owners) and get something that works.