Patri Friedman

Except 0% of what you say has ever been tested in court. The answer is clearly not "no rights." What if founders allocated themselves extra tokens? Or inflated the supply?

Moreover, "rights" isn't synonymous with "power." Holders of a large portion of tokens may or may not have creative ways to exert power over founders, eg, flooding the market right when founder tokens unlock

Sure, tokenholders have methods of influence. But that's not the same as "rights", let alone voting rights. The SEC could declare tokens to be securities that get minority protections (disclosure, etc.), but they aren't going to declare them to be voting shares.

So in my hypothetical above where founders allocate themselves additional shares post-ICO, your position is existing token holders have no rights? I think this is far from clear.

If the token is bought, and assurances are made (like future dilution), then extra dilution could be actionable. That's a right. But in the donation structure, I don't see any recourse. Under what contract or regulation do you see token holders having rights?

The "donation" structure is just a fake name people use to avoid securities laws. That's gone. There are tons of things they could try to sue for, eg, unjust enrichment.

Are you the seasteading guy?