> The initial distribution of wld will be much more fair than the initial distribution of any other token or currency I know of. That is the value of the biometric.

And how is this not a lie when it's so easy to game? It's only shifting the distribution from people who were running a computer early to people who buy biometrics early, steal biometrics or find ways to fake biometrics. And even worse, if you were once robbed of your biometrics in that system, you have lost it forever as I understand it? Is there even any way to get back what was robbed from you?

And just out of curiosity, does this system handle collisions of biometrics? Or is it just assuming and hopes for none to happen?

I disagree that it's so easy to game but maybe you know more than me?

I'm not sure what you mean by buying biometrics early, stealing them seems very uneconomical, and faking them is an engineering challenge which seems quite difficult.

> And even worse, if you were once robbed of your biometrics in that system, you have lost it forever as I understand it? Is there even any way to get back what was robbed from you?

The biometric is only used for the airdrop. It is possible to create a wallet and send and receive transactions without ever visiting an orb. The only thing the biometric does is send an initial amount of WLD to your wallet and ensure that you can only receive that initial amount once.

If someone steals your wallet there is no getting it back, it is not linked to your identity it is just a private key. I'm not really sure what it means in this context to steal your biometrics?

> And just out of curiosity, does this system handle collisions of biometrics? Or is it just assuming and hopes for none to happen?

This is territory I don't know very well. I believe irises were chosen specifically because they were not invasive and they contain enough entropy that the chance of collisions is quite small. I don't know if it has enough entropy that they can be sure there are no collisions or if it has enough entropy that the expected number of collisions was tolerably low.

It seems you didn't read the article, it specifically talks about people are already buying accounts for $30 or less to be able to make accounts in areas where you're not allowed to register.

> "Scam" implies some kind of fraud or lie

Then Worldcoin is a scam.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/06/1048981/worldcoi...

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/richardnieva/worldcoin-...

what's fair about founders/investors holding 25% of all coins?

Does it? What prevents a factory owner from having all of his employees grab an orb, scan their irises, claim their coin, and then hand over their wallets to him as a condition of employment?

Assuming this thing actually works and won't accept irises grown in a vat or someone scanning a chimpanzee, it at least rate-limits you to creating new wallets with new coin at the rate at which you can find and coerce other humans, but it doesn't actually guarantee the 1:1 mapping of wallet:human or an equal initial distribution of coin.

All it's doing is shifting the balance of power from people who command many machines to people who command many other people. It's like reverting industrialism back to feudalism, a digital replay of the same mistake made by every communist revolution of the 20th century.

I said and I meant "more fair". We both agree this will not be a perfectly fair airdrop. Anything not perfect is feudalism?

> What prevents a factory owner from having all of his employees grab an orb, scan their irises, claim their coin, and then hand over their wallets to him as a condition of employment?

The airdrop is gated in multiple places. Everybody needs to visit an orb to claim worldcoin but the set of active orbs is managed by worldcoin and when one of them acts suspiciously the orb can be deactivated, among other counter-measures. A set of wallets all owned by distinct people will act differently than a set of wallets controlled by one person.

This is obviously not a perfect counter-measure, some fraud will absolutely occur. It is still a more fair initial distribution than any other currency I know of.

Describing it like this makes it sound very much like a ponzi scheme. When you buy into WLD, you're effectively giving money to current WLD holders, with the hope that more suckers will buy in and do the same for you.

You don't know what a ponzi scheme is. You're describing speculative markets, which have always existed, and must exist for any sort of economic stability to occur.