BM has repeatedly argued that current PTS is actually not very liquid and therefore PTS holders should be grateful to be "locked in" and "vested" in a more liquid BTS market. The crux of this argument is that, right now, you can't sell your PTS anyways since the market is too shallow to absorb any significant volume.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of PTS holders are small investors who could move in and out of their positions without significantly moving the market. This supposed "benefit" of liquidity in a deeper market is actually only a benefit for the handful of investors who (1) own extremely large amounts of PTS and (2) want the ability to rapidly invest/divest.
So it seems the entire structure of PTS allocation in the superDAC has been designed to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the average user.
Here's the trade-off for the vast majority of PTS users (95%):
* In the current PTS, average users do not face problems with liquidity.
* In the superDAC, average users will lose their liquidity by being "locked in" for 2 years.
Here's the trade-off for the extremely wealthy (top 5%):
* In the current PTS, wealthy users face problems with liquidity.
* In the superDAC, wealthy users are willing to "suffer" through the vesting period in exchange for something they don't currently have - liquidity.
Based on these arguments by BM, it appears that the proposed allocation for the superDAC was designed with the interests of the wealthy 5% superseding the interests of the majority of PTS users. Would love to hear a response other than "nothing is fair, we tried our best, deal with it", but I am not hopeful...