In my experience with lysergic amides the form of dosing is extremely important for the onset time. With liquid dosage I usually come up withing 30 min, 45 max, while it takes me 1,5 - 2 h with blotters. Sugar cubes are somewhere in-between. With really high doses of LSD in solution (250-350 µg) I felt the first effects after 10 minutes! With 200 µg blotters it took at least 45...
.
I kind of agree with you there, but honestly, that's
your experience, and other people are going to have other opinions/experiences. And as I said, there's other threads for that, so let us just let it end here so we can keep on topic. My point still stand, that we can't conclude anything on 1-P-LSD's pharmacology from SI Ingwes fast come up.
I don't think 1P-LSD is a prodrug. It shouldn't be compared to 4-AcO/4-HO tryptamines because esters are WAY WAY easier to hydrolyse in vivo than amides. Just think of the diethylamide moiety in the molecule! However, it's long action might be partially explainable by some degree of hydrolysis in the 1-position. Whichever it is, I would really love to give this one a try. It sounds very promising...
I wasn't comparing it to 4-AcO/HO-DMT pharmacologically/chemically

you misunderstand me. I just had a look in my crystal ball, and what I saw was that some people aren't going to be able to tell this apart from LSD, while others are going to swear they can feel a difference. Just like with psilocin/psilacetin. But we'll see about that in the coming months

I might be wrong.
What we won't "see" in the coming months though, is if this really is a prodrug of LSD or not. We'll probably never know for sure, so yeah, what ever. I'm not going to get into a pointless discussion on pharmacology, or about who is the more clueless scientist, Nichols or Hoffman.