I am not sure about your last statement but I believe NXT is well represented and "identified". https://xrptalk.org/topic/3116-nxt-goes-mainstream-payexpo-sms-payments-atms-nxtcafe-and-market-gains/

Most "anonymous" coins after the first few coins tend to go into oblivion. A classic case of high visibility is ethereum. They have been upfront with all their cards opened in the first place. Look where they are now. Nevermind if it is vaporware or not. It has yet to be seen. Fact is, they have opened their cards and stripped themselves naked for all to see. What's more satisfying to know as a result of that is that you have a huge following of developers contributing.

Besides, if we have a face to a name, this can be promoted on the ground rather than purely virtual as is now. Further, in this game we are playing, there has been too many scams and therefore trust is of utmost importance. Whatever it is, our leader who resigned had not been forthcoming with his honesty. And that's when it is more important now than ever that we need to have a name to the face of the new leader and not just some pseudonym. That can only make matters worse.

Hi utopianfuture,

I wonder if you would read the following, and tell me if I am way out left field, or if you see some of these ideals possibly realizing in NEM?

I was wondering: how do we get a system of distribution, where the initial crowds are not necessarily getting all the benefits of the money, directly after it had been created?

I find myself chanting this mantra:  "Every human  -  One stake  -  One time  -  Any time."

I would like to see a system where my children would get their stake when they get old enough.
I would like to see a mechanism whereby every new account that is created for a person, comes with it's full stake of coins for that unique, adult, human being.

The mechanism to create a new account for a human, relies on a process that is initiated by lets say two or three mature accounts, Let's call them 'bankers'.
They have to verify that this is a live, unique human, with no other or no previous accounts.
This process of generating a new account, is where the forging or 'mining occurs and new coins are created.
The initiating accounts (bankers) get a reasonable fee for starting up the new account, but the majority of the newly forged money is residing in the new account.
(There is nothing preventing the new account holder enticing the bankers with some payments outside of the currency for the startup).
I think that any account should only be allowed to be a banker a certain amount of times. How about once for every finger(print) - ten times?

The process for a new account to mature into a 'procreating banker' can be linked to certain economic activity - some proof of work or proof of stake, or proof of participation in the economy.

The main arguments for such a system would be:
The creation of money is not only favoring the initial group that get exposed to it early on, because it is created as people enter the currency.
The ratio of coins to humans stays the same, even generations from now.

The main argument against such a system is that nobody here in cryptoland likes the idea of uniquely identifying a human.
(And that would be an important part in any system that wants to give each human one, and only one stake.)
And, let's not forget our greed: many are wondering at how can I leverage things in my favor?

Nevertheless, I wonder, is it possible to incorporate something like this into the block-chain algorithm of a crypto currency?

Maybe I see things too simplistic. That could be.  I see some parallels to the biologic world. Well, I have no economic training, working in the health care field.

Anyways, thanks for your time.

Pentamon