Respectfully, there are so many things amiss with @Lion7Flash's response

that I have been, in my spare time, trying to take each assumption / assertion, and address it, but it's a lot to unpack.

"Time so far has shown that the major stakeholders don't seem to care about new investors."

Has it? Don't they? Sweeping generalization and not particularly useful perspective imo. Large token holders, along with everyone else, got rekt, when $4.1B raised on the backs of ALL token holders, left, and was largely not reinvested in the ecosystem.

"They're the ones who could help stabilize the price, but instead, anyone who buys in ends up footing the bill for the large stakeholders who are cashing out and continuously driving down the price."

In decentralized ecosystems, and markets in general, every investor, big or small, acts in their own interest. To my point above, the collective interest of the network was deeply undermined by the exit of 4.1B+ of capital (that the community invested) forcing token holders to make hard decisions based on the repeated broken promises and failures of the previous entity that was ostensibly responsible for development of the network.

Who do buyers buy from? Is Felix saying that new buyers should only be able to buy from other small holders?

So if a new buyer wants 1000 EOS, it's bad for some rekt whale to sell those 1000 from their hypothetical 3 million EOS stash rather than some small holder dumping his/her entire 1000 EOS stash onto the market? What's the difference? There is a weird moral relativism going on here.

"EOS needs a long-term staking solution to incentivize holding for the long term. Do a 5-10 year lock-in period with a ROI that would give new people a reason to invest today."

This was already pretty well addressed. It's not so simple.

"From my point of view, I find it hard to believe that the distribution is widely distributed when the active community is so small compared to other cryptocurrency communities."

Perception of community activity does not necessarily correlate with a wide distribution. Some cryptocurrencies with a large distribution may have a passive holder base. Also, active where? In what language? Are you looking at all participation across all EOS communities? Turkish, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, English? The measure of activity here is strange and seems to disregard the overall history and development of the chain.

"My feeling is that the network needs to be willing to show that greed is not driving the economics of the ecosystem."

So the community that had $4.1B stolen from them by a corporation that failed to invest back in any meaningful way, the burden is on the community to not be greedy. The community that continues to build and organize and direct inflation as a tax on every holder to continue to build, is somehow demonstrating that greed is driving the economics of the ecosystem? BUT, if you were a crypto project that mananged to keep all the capital you raised and made all the insiders token-holders rich, and they were so loaded that they were able to fund navel gazing think tanks and DAOs and island getaways... that is altruism? I'm thoroughly confused. This is world class victim shaming.

"Locking up tokens and incentivizing savings that benefits smaller investors while limiting whales from capturing the network is a solution I hope EOS is thinking about."

Locking up tokens can reduce price volatility, but it's essential not to harm the network's liquidity or utility in the process. Also, there isn't much savings on the network currently, in case it wasn't obvious. Again with maligning the "whale". "limiting" them from capturing the network... I don't even know what this could possibly refer to, shall we restrain them by force?

"The reality is that investing in a cryptocurrency where there is a lack of transparency on what the true distribution of tokens looks like is highly risky…"

I'd like to thank you for spending your time to shed light on the topic. As most people just talk from their ass .