user24585: As Nxt's generating accounts receive now the transaction fees of the transactions included in the block they forged, it would be possible to add some new NXT to the balance of the generating account, incentivizing forging even more and distributing the currency in a better way.
Is there a technical reason why all NXT were distributed in the beginning instead of distributed over time?

user5406: From studying the Whitepaper it appears that there is no technical reason not to have block rewards, rather it appears to be a design decision that the sum of all assets is always zero: When Nxt's Genesis block was created, the Genesis account issued 1,000,000,000 NXT which were distributed to other accounts, hence rendering the account with a negative balance and unable to send any other transactions. As the sum of all assets must remain the same in each block, no more can be created.
I couldn't find any further explanation for the decision of initial distribution, but all initial NXT were distributed among the 72 users that contributed to the Nxt funding.

user575: Proof of work in Bitcoin has two distinct purposes: To issue coins, and to synchronize transactions.
In NXT, PoW for synchronization was eschewed, the stated purpose being reducing long-term energy usage and ecologic harm. They're using PoS instead.
For some reason, probably misunderstanding the roles of PoW, they thought this means they also shouldn't use PoW for issuing either. Some method of issuing is still needed, and forgoing PoW doesn't leave much options, since PoS is not a valid issuing method. So they went with a centralized issuing, where the coin's creator gets all the proceeds from the issuing. Of course, this means the currency is not decentralized.
Probably, the creator wanted to get rich quick, and this contributed to the decision.

user18526: If every block subsidizes the forger with extra coins (in addition to the fees) then bigger accounts become even bigger by following the compound interest curve. In a currency with selfish forgers most of the coins would be absorbed by very few accounts that would lead to centralization of the currency.
This was predicted (https://nxtforum.org/alternate-cryptocurrencies/dgex-assists-in-launch-of-a-new-crypto-fimk/msg58485/#msg58485) by me and proved in practice (http://forum.fimk.fi/index.php?topic=539.0) by FIMKRYPTO, which is a clone of Nxt with over-time distribution.
Regarding a PoW distribution, back in 2013, when Nxt was launched, PoW couldn't be used as a good distribution method because a CPU-friendly algorithm would give enormous advantage to botnet masters and a GPU-friendly one - to owners of GPU-based mining farms left after Bitcoin rise in 2012.

24585: <p>As Nxt's generating accounts receive now the transaction fees of the transactions included in the block they forged, it would be possible to add some new NXT to the balance of the generating account, incentivizing forging even more and distributing the currency in a better way.</p>

<p>Is there a technical reason why all NXT were distributed in the beginning instead of distributed over time?</p>
 5406: <p>From studying the <a href="http://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/Whitepaper:Nxt" rel="nofollow">Whitepaper</a> it appears that there is no technical reason not to have block rewards, rather it appears to be a design decision that the sum of all assets is always zero: When Nxt's Genesis block was created, the Genesis account issued 1,000,000,000 NXT which were distributed to other accounts, hence rendering the account with a negative balance and unable to send any other transactions. As the sum of all assets must remain the same in each block, no more can be created.</p>

<p>I couldn't find any further explanation for the decision of initial distribution, but all initial NXT were distributed among the 72 users that contributed to the Nxt funding.</p>
 575: <p>Proof of work in Bitcoin has two distinct purposes: To issue coins, and to synchronize transactions.</p>

<p>In NXT, PoW for synchronization was eschewed, the stated purpose being reducing long-term energy usage and ecologic harm. They're using PoS instead.</p>

<p>For some reason, probably misunderstanding the roles of PoW, they thought this means they also shouldn't use PoW for issuing either. Some method of issuing is still needed, and forgoing PoW doesn't leave much options, since PoS is not a valid issuing method. So they went with a centralized issuing, where the coin's creator gets all the proceeds from the issuing. Of course, this means the currency is not decentralized.</p>

<p>Probably, the creator wanted to get rich quick, and this contributed to the decision.</p>
 18526: <p>If every block subsidizes the forger with extra coins (in addition to the fees) then bigger accounts become even bigger by following the compound interest curve. In a currency with selfish forgers most of the coins would be absorbed by very few accounts that would lead to centralization of the currency.</p>

<p>This was predicted (<a href="https://nxtforum.org/alternate-cryptocurrencies/dgex-assists-in-launch-of-a-new-crypto-fimk/msg58485/#msg58485" rel="nofollow">https://nxtforum.org/alternate-cryptocurrencies/dgex-assists-in-launch-of-a-new-crypto-fimk/msg58485/#msg58485</a>) by me and proved in practice (<a href="http://forum.fimk.fi/index.php?topic=539.0" rel="nofollow">http://forum.fimk.fi/index.php?topic=539.0</a>) by FIMKRYPTO, which is a clone of Nxt with over-time distribution.</p>

<p>Regarding a PoW distribution, back in 2013, when Nxt was launched, PoW couldn't be used as a good distribution method because a CPU-friendly algorithm would give enormous advantage to botnet masters and a GPU-friendly one - to owners of GPU-based mining farms left after Bitcoin rise in 2012.</p>
