Tara Duncan
Someone please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the situation.
I have some vague recollection that Adam was expelled from the group for inappropriate behaviour. While in "exile" Adam missed the Dogecoin directive from Pete as he was not entitled to participate in the forum. Hence he was also not entitled to participate in the initiative. At some point Adam's access was reinstated and we are now to reward him by:
1. assisting him with the installation of a wallet 2. having Pete give him the same "reward" as everyone else who complied with the directive 3. having Pete direct everyone who has been participating either by purchasing, mining, or clicking for Dogecoins, to send Adam coins 4. offering Adam a significant number of coins for sharing information that is freely offered by everyone else participating on the site
Don't get me wrong. This is not an Adam-bashing session. Adam is just a place-holder in this conversation and the Adam place could be held by anyone in a similar situation. Also, the actual value of the coins is insignificant at this time, and any future value is speculative.
If you look at this logically, though, the person with the largest number of "assets" is setting the rules. The rules state he will reward non-participation, direct everyone else to reward bad behaviour, and offer to pay for information that by the terms of the forum has been offered freely by all members in good standing.
This seems a lot like a microcosm of the world-state you all say you're trying to avoid. Nice job embracing the stereotype , Pierre.