I want to believe! But if the protocol (and code) is really 'open', others can use it without needing any of the rationed tokens. Sometimes, exclusion/scarcit

I want to believe! But if the protocol (and code) is really 'open', others can use it without needing any of the rationed tokens. Sometimes, exclusion/scarcity will be part of the value-proposition on the 'genesis' network. Then – and perhaps only then – many parties have aligned motivations for continuing to enforce a dominant, original token regime. This may only be the case for cryptocurrencies. Consider instead an adversarial, spam-and-abuse-prone protocol/platform like "fast & wide microbroadcast" (Twitter). That wouldn't necessarily need one access-token – Wilson's 'twokens' – whose value accrues to core or original developers, or early adopters. It could support many competing token/trust roots, for different schools of thought on communication/conduct tradeoffs. That's good on many axes of diversity and adoption! But it also again raises the public-good problem, of how to fund initial development (and continued wise evolution) of the 'common protocol'.