In any case, I don't think it matters that much. As bitcoins become more ubiquitous, fewer people will know or care about who jumped in early, and how well they've done.
I dont think you understand, my point is that the market is struggling with this initial allocation and trying to spread it out, but in doing so lowering its usefulness. (you cant tell me that the huge volatility we have seen and are seeing is NOT largely due to this, and NOT reducing Bitcoins value overall)
I think there are two big issues causing more problems than the supply curve: the learning curve for bitcoin, and the fact people can't get or dump bitcoins on a whim. Having to go through the exchanges (I know it's not mandatory, just one of the easiest ways) is quite a bottleneck.
My theory with the sigmoid curve is that naturally, as the reward/block grows over time, the incentive to adopt Bitcoin actually grows, and the growth of the community will adapt to it. It simply spreads out more Bitcoins to later people (this is exactly what the market has done the past 6 months!) while still maintaining its basic properties, as "peak bitcoin" would eventually be hit.
I see where you're coming from, but I do see one distinct advantage with the current growth curve: coins pour in at a high rate right from the start, for quite a while. We still haven't hit the first block payout reduction, so we still, 2 years from startup, have access to the 50 coins/block. True, it's harder, but that's more a function of so many miners jumping in.
With a sigmoid curve, sure, early adopters would have fewer coins... but we'd also probably still be having trouble getting bitcoins due to lower payouts, and would be waiting for the uptick for the coins to pour in.
So, I guess I can see it working (and having issues) either way.
