Future: DApps, SuperDAC, Third Party DACS, bitshares toolkit and Social Contract

[xeroc]

@amencoin & Bitshatking

please stop this ridiculous quarell... One has the great passion and almost religious belief in BTS, tries to rally the troops behind the leaders.
this is very different to what another one who is critical thinker hopes for. Please just agree to disagree based on completely different backgrounds, cultures, characters, and approaches. Just agree to do your best for the advancement of the project, and listen to feedback from the community and developers with regards to the usefullness of your actions.

@Bitshatking - I don't think amencoin is a traitor, there is no reason to blame that. Even though you are very energetic in your backing of Bitshares leaders, also 3I is learning from community input and constructive criticisms. diversity of opinions and perspectives among community is crucial in finding the best way forward for a decentralised company! perhaps it would be wiser for you to soften your communication somewhat.

In that sense, Bitshares United!

[amencon]

@amencoin & Bitshatking

please stop this ridiculous quarell... One has the great passion and almost religious belief in BTS, tries to rally the troops behind the leaders.
this is very different to what another one who is critical thinker hopes for. Please just agree to disagree based on completely different backgrounds, cultures, characters, and approaches. Just agree to do your best for the advancement of the project, and listen to feedback from the community and developers with regards to the usefullness of your actions.

@Bitshatking - I don't think amencoin is a traitor, there is no reason to blame that. Even though you are very energetic in your backing of Bitshares leaders, also 3I is learning from community input and constructive criticisms. perhaps it would be wiser for you to soften your communication somewhat.

Bitshares United!

You got it kisa, I'm done, thanks.

[kisa]

@amencoin & Bitshatking

please stop this ridiculous quarell... One has the great passion and almost religious belief in BTS, tries to rally the troops behind the leaders.
this is very different to what another one who is critical thinker hopes for. Please just agree to disagree based on completely different backgrounds, cultures, characters, and approaches. Just agree to do your best for the advancement of the project, and listen to feedback from the community and developers with regards to the usefullness of your actions.

@Bitshatking - I don't think amencoin is a traitor, there is no reason to blame that. Even though you are very energetic in your backing of Bitshares leaders, also 3I is learning from community input and constructive criticisms. diversity of opinions and perspectives among community is crucial in finding the best way forward for a decentralised company! perhaps it would be wiser for you to soften your communication somewhat.

In that sense, Bitshares United!

[Pheonike]

to make it clear why it is not fair in my eyes;

Alice: invested all her money in the AGS Snapshot before Feb 28. and get 1% of BTSX == 580.000 AGS existed at this point she is holding 5800 AGS

Bob: invested all ist money after the BTSX Snapshort Feb. 28 and gets 1% total in AGS == 2.000.000 AGS exists and he holds 20.000 AGS

Alice is happy because she thinks BTSX has the biggest succesrate of all bitshares chain
Bob is also happy because he thinks he will benifet from multiply promising bitshares chains (DNS, Music, Vote, Play where already announced)

Let's check where Alice and Bobs stands before and after the merger

Alice : holds 0.5% BTSX from 50/50 allocation = = 10.000.000 BTSX worth 250.000 USD
           holds DNS 5.800.000 worth 4.187 USD
           holds Vote 4.350.000 worth ?
Bob : holds DNS 40.000.000 worth 28.880 USD
          holds Vote 15.000.000 worth ?

Alice and Bob are happy!

After the merger

Alice : BTSX stake is worth the same 250.000 USD
          DNS stake is worth 2.000 USD and have a lock up period
          Vote stake is worht 1.500 USD and have a lock up period
          AGS stake are converted to BTS with worth 11.600 USD and has a lock up period
- she looses the ability for future snapshots because everything is transferd to BTS, but this is ok for her, because her major stake in already in BTSX

Bob : DNS stake is worth 14.400 USD and have a lock up period
          Vote stake is worth 12.000 USD and have a lock up period
          AGS stake are converted in BTS with worth 40.000 USD and has a lock up period
- he looses the ability for future snapshots, because everything is transferd to BTS, he is not appy, because he invested to benefit from future bitshares chains

What i not took in account is that Alice donored more BTC to get her share, and Bob less. But if you convert it back you will see that Alice gained much more then Bob. Do you think Bob should support this merger? Do you think it is ok for Alice to get all the windfall profits?

You forgot, the only Dacs to get absorb are DNS and Vote which he was paid for. He also got a stake in BTSX which he did not have before. Also if future DACS when still be able to honor PTS and AGS because they can still snapshot them. So Bob lost a little in DNS, but he gains in Vote,and BTSX for the price of some liquidity. His shares in Music and any other DACs are unharmed if the developers honors AGS/PTS. 

[amencon]

I don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.

It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.

What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored.

  The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors.  That takes precedent over all others.  What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?

Come on guys let's not argue based on fear mongering tactics using "what if" statements.  You don't know that this merger won't result in everything I3 has done result in being worthless seeing how they are putting all their eggs in one basket now.

Even BM accurately stated that this move was what he thought was the right decision but that he could be wrong.

If your argument is that no statements or contracts or agreements should ever be binding for BM and I3 because you implicitly trust them to make the right decisions, then that is a perfectly fine argument to make with no need to invoke impossible to prove "what if" scenarios.

I would not call it fear mongering at all. Look at it this way:

They always speak clearly and honestly about the options.

People were upset when they moved away from mining: Now it is common sense!

People were upset when they introduced AGS: Now ICO's are common sense!

People were upset when they introduced DPoS: Now it is our best chance to survive!

People were upset that bitUSD was an experiment: They made it work!

Now people are upset at merger and share issuance, so is this time different? I don't think so; if you watch closely veterans of all stripes on this forum seem to agree with the proposal.

Just because a merger might be successful doesn't mean the old paradigm couldn't have been.  You nor anyone else knows that BTSX as a stand alone DAC was going to die for sure (in fact about a week ago everyone was convinced it was in great shape and going to be greatly successful) so it's disingenuous to use that as an argument why it's OK for I3 to violate the social consensus.  I'm not even arguing that violating the consensus is the wrong move, just that if you want to take the position that there should be no constraints on what I3 can do in the future based on their previous statements, you should make that clear rather than positing some fantasy scenario where BTSX was apparently doomed until a few days ago.

Oh u think u know best for Bitshares!  Why cant u just get OVER IT!  Keep opinion to youself!  Stop hurting Bitshares because u angry.

I've stated many times that this might very well be the best for Bitshares.  Sorry you find my opinions on things so frustrating.  I'm actually not angry, I just don't agree with everything that has happened and dislike many attitudes I find within this community, your thread about I3 and Mao serving as a quintessential example.

Hear me...

Mao all ways put his people first just like Stan and Dan.  Some people loose.  Ok.  Sacrifice necessary for STRONG BITSHARES!

If u dont like GET OUT TRATOR!!!

Haha, yes sir!

[BitshatKing]

I don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.

It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.

What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored.

  The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors.  That takes precedent over all others.  What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?

Come on guys let's not argue based on fear mongering tactics using "what if" statements.  You don't know that this merger won't result in everything I3 has done result in being worthless seeing how they are putting all their eggs in one basket now.

Even BM accurately stated that this move was what he thought was the right decision but that he could be wrong.

If your argument is that no statements or contracts or agreements should ever be binding for BM and I3 because you implicitly trust them to make the right decisions, then that is a perfectly fine argument to make with no need to invoke impossible to prove "what if" scenarios.

I would not call it fear mongering at all. Look at it this way:

They always speak clearly and honestly about the options.

People were upset when they moved away from mining: Now it is common sense!

People were upset when they introduced AGS: Now ICO's are common sense!

People were upset when they introduced DPoS: Now it is our best chance to survive!

People were upset that bitUSD was an experiment: They made it work!

Now people are upset at merger and share issuance, so is this time different? I don't think so; if you watch closely veterans of all stripes on this forum seem to agree with the proposal.

Just because a merger might be successful doesn't mean the old paradigm couldn't have been.  You nor anyone else knows that BTSX as a stand alone DAC was going to die for sure (in fact about a week ago everyone was convinced it was in great shape and going to be greatly successful) so it's disingenuous to use that as an argument why it's OK for I3 to violate the social consensus.  I'm not even arguing that violating the consensus is the wrong move, just that if you want to take the position that there should be no constraints on what I3 can do in the future based on their previous statements, you should make that clear rather than positing some fantasy scenario where BTSX was apparently doomed until a few days ago.

Oh u think u know best for Bitshares!  Why cant u just get OVER IT!  Keep opinion to youself!  Stop hurting Bitshares because u angry.

I've stated many times that this might very well be the best for Bitshares.  Sorry you find my opinions on things so frustrating.  I'm actually not angry, I just don't agree with everything that has happened and dislike many attitudes I find within this community, your thread about I3 and Mao serving as a quintessential example.

Hear me...

Mao all ways put his people first just like Stan and Dan.  Some people loose.  Ok.  Sacrifice necessary for STRONG BITSHARES!

If u dont like GET OUT TRATOR!!!

[luckybit]

Social Contract
One of the main issues here is that it is not fulfilled. It lured a lot of people into trusting III. Even if they had no intention to follow the contract they didn't make enough effort to say it clear. With the proposal even if it is fair under some perspectives it is unfair in the terms of the contract. This is what bothers many people. There were many suggestions attempting to make an alternative proposal abiding the contract AND merging all into one chain. Apparently something else is needed to persuade III.

Forget about persuading III. Decentralize and innovate.
Here is a path you could take: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10468.0

1) Form a Bitshares Cooperative.
2) Track decentralized reputation and award Non-Transferable Patronage Points to verified identities who give gifts to support development.
3) The cooperative can form partnerships with individual developers, private corporations, public institutions, non-profits, to give dividend rewards back to those who acquired good reputation mapped on the blockchain with Non-Transferable Patronage Points.
4) Competitive gift giving to support development can replace investment which would remove SEC and regulatory vulnerability.

Patronage Points (decentralized reputation credits) would allow the community to enforce the social contract through the Bitshares Cooperative. If you violate the will of the community then you don't get awarded Patronage Points for your development efforts and as a result the community will not reward your efforts with gifts.

The benefits to doing it through a cooperative is that as the network effects grow the amount and variety of the gifts which could be given can grow. These gifts could fund development just fine without any legal obligation and the blockchain could map reputation even when participants are pseudo-anonymous persons. The Bitshares Cooperative could be the place where we all go to verify our unique identities on the blockchain as well because Patronage Points have to be Non-Transferable to act as reputation credits which means you need to confirm a real world identity somewhere.

The benefit to confirming your real world identity with a Bitshares Cooperative is that the moment you do so you become a member and shareholder of the cooperative. This immediately allows you to benefit from any partnerships, deals, rebates, discounts, vouchers, gifts, from any centralized or decentralized institution. So a Bitshares Cooperative is just a legal bridge to connect DACs to centralized institutions so that the Bitshares Cooperative can start international credit unions for example with Bitshares users as the shareholders.

[amencon]

I agree, we have no idea. BM could be wrong, and the community could call him out on it, but the community could be wrong as well, not calling him out on it, and we would not necessarily know until it all goes downhill. It seems to me however that what we have over all the other communities is an invaluable intellectual flexibility that comes with independent critical thinkers reaching reasoned consensus.

I think we can move forward on our new path in a positive manner without pretending we know what would have happened on all other paths we could have taken.  I don't really think we disagree that much with each other.  My original comment was maybe sort of a nitpick but how the message is phrased is important to me and I think it's important to keep it as honest as possible.

[Shentist]

to make it clear why it is not fair in my eyes;

Alice: invested all her money in the AGS Snapshot before Feb 28. and get 1% of BTSX == 580.000 AGS existed at this point she is holding 5800 AGS

Bob: invested all ist money after the BTSX Snapshort Feb. 28 and gets 1% total in AGS == 2.000.000 AGS exists and he holds 20.000 AGS

Alice is happy because she thinks BTSX has the biggest succesrate of all bitshares chain
Bob is also happy because he thinks he will benifet from multiply promising bitshares chains (DNS, Music, Vote, Play where already announced)

Let's check where Alice and Bobs stands before and after the merger

Alice : holds 0.5% BTSX from 50/50 allocation = = 10.000.000 BTSX worth 250.000 USD
           holds DNS 5.800.000 worth 4.187 USD
           holds Vote 4.350.000 worth ?
Bob : holds DNS 40.000.000 worth 28.880 USD
          holds Vote 15.000.000 worth ?

Alice and Bob are happy!

After the merger

Alice : BTSX stake is worth the same 250.000 USD
          DNS stake is worth 2.000 USD and have a lock up period
          Vote stake is worht 1.500 USD and have a lock up period
          AGS stake are converted to BTS with worth 11.600 USD and has a lock up period
- she looses the ability for future snapshots because everything is transferd to BTS, but this is ok for her, because her major stake in already in BTSX

Bob : DNS stake is worth 14.400 USD and have a lock up period
          Vote stake is worth 12.000 USD and have a lock up period
          AGS stake are converted in BTS with worth 40.000 USD and has a lock up period
- he looses the ability for future snapshots, because everything is transferd to BTS, he is not appy, because he invested to benefit from future bitshares chains

What i not took in account is that Alice donored more BTC to get her share, and Bob less. But if you convert it back you will see that Alice gained much more then Bob. Do you think Bob should support this merger? Do you think it is ok for Alice to get all the windfall profits?

[cube]

..
I've stated many times that this might very well be the best for Bitshares.  Sorry you find my opinions on things so frustrating.  I'm actually not angry, I just don't agree with everything that has happened and dislike many attitudes I find within this community, your thread about I3 and Mao serving as a quintessential example.

We should value all critical thinking from various perspectives.  These are valuable input for sound decision making.

[CLains]

I agree, we have no idea. BM could be wrong, and the community could call him out on it, but the community could be wrong as well, not calling him out on it, and we would not necessarily know until it all goes downhill. It seems to me however that what we have over all the other communities is an invaluable intellectual flexibility that comes with independent critical thinkers reaching reasoned consensus.

[amencon]

I don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.

It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.

What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored.

  The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors.  That takes precedent over all others.  What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?

Come on guys let's not argue based on fear mongering tactics using "what if" statements.  You don't know that this merger won't result in everything I3 has done result in being worthless seeing how they are putting all their eggs in one basket now.

Even BM accurately stated that this move was what he thought was the right decision but that he could be wrong.

If your argument is that no statements or contracts or agreements should ever be binding for BM and I3 because you implicitly trust them to make the right decisions, then that is a perfectly fine argument to make with no need to invoke impossible to prove "what if" scenarios.

I would not call it fear mongering at all. Look at it this way:

They always speak clearly and honestly about the options.

People were upset when they moved away from mining: Now it is common sense!

People were upset when they introduced AGS: Now ICO's are common sense!

People were upset when they introduced DPoS: Now it is our best chance to survive!

People were upset that bitUSD was an experiment: They made it work!

Now people are upset at merger and share issuance, so is this time different? I don't think so; if you watch closely veterans of all stripes on this forum seem to agree with the proposal.

Just because a merger might be successful doesn't mean the old paradigm couldn't have been.  You nor anyone else knows that BTSX as a stand alone DAC was going to die for sure (in fact about a week ago everyone was convinced it was in great shape and going to be greatly successful) so it's disingenuous to use that as an argument why it's OK for I3 to violate the social consensus.  I'm not even arguing that violating the consensus is the wrong move, just that if you want to take the position that there should be no constraints on what I3 can do in the future based on their previous statements, you should make that clear rather than positing some fantasy scenario where BTSX was apparently doomed until a few days ago.

Oh u think u know best for Bitshares!  Why cant u just get OVER IT!  Keep opinion to youself!  Stop hurting Bitshares because u angry.

I've stated many times that this might very well be the best for Bitshares.  Sorry you find my opinions on things so frustrating.  I'm actually not angry, I just don't agree with everything that has happened and dislike many attitudes I find within this community, your thread about I3 and Mao serving as a quintessential example.

[amencon]

if you want to take the position that there should be no constraints on what I3 can do in the future based on their previous statements, you should make that clear rather than positing some fantasy scenario where BTSX was apparently doomed until a few days ago.

Without consensus from the people who are heavily involved in and understand this space I3 would not have gone through with the proposal. This was the condition in every iteration, that we all discuss the proposal freely and let the best ideas and arguments win the day. We don't just trust BM to make a change whenever he feels like it, he has to convince us with arguments - if he is not able, as has happened several times, the proposal is revoked.

Ok that's fair, but doesn't really change what I was saying.  The majority has voted to move away from the initial concept of the social consensus through good argumentation from BM.  Has nothing to do with arguing that moving away from the social consensus was necessary due to BTSX supposed imminent demise.

Nobody knows the future.  We all hope the right decisions are being made.  I'm perfectly fine with attempts to form consensus by discussing the merits of the merger, I don't think there is any reason to pretend like we know for sure that everything would have failed otherwise and base arguments from that perspective.

[CLains]

if you want to take the position that there should be no constraints on what I3 can do in the future based on their previous statements, you should make that clear rather than positing some fantasy scenario where BTSX was apparently doomed until a few days ago.

Without consensus from the people who are heavily involved in and understand this space I3 would not have gone through with the proposal. This was the condition in every iteration, that we all discuss the proposal freely and let the best ideas and arguments win the day. We don't just trust BM to make a change whenever he feels like it, he has to convince us with arguments - if he is not able, as has happened several times, the proposal is revoked.

[BitshatKing]

I don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.

It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.

What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored.

  The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors.  That takes precedent over all others.  What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?

Come on guys let's not argue based on fear mongering tactics using "what if" statements.  You don't know that this merger won't result in everything I3 has done result in being worthless seeing how they are putting all their eggs in one basket now.

Even BM accurately stated that this move was what he thought was the right decision but that he could be wrong.

If your argument is that no statements or contracts or agreements should ever be binding for BM and I3 because you implicitly trust them to make the right decisions, then that is a perfectly fine argument to make with no need to invoke impossible to prove "what if" scenarios.

I would not call it fear mongering at all. Look at it this way:

They always speak clearly and honestly about the options.

People were upset when they moved away from mining: Now it is common sense!

People were upset when they introduced AGS: Now ICO's are common sense!

People were upset when they introduced DPoS: Now it is our best chance to survive!

People were upset that bitUSD was an experiment: They made it work!

Now people are upset at merger and share issuance, so is this time different? I don't think so; if you watch closely veterans of all stripes on this forum seem to agree with the proposal.

Just because a merger might be successful doesn't mean the old paradigm couldn't have been.  You nor anyone else knows that BTSX as a stand alone DAC was going to die for sure (in fact about a week ago everyone was convinced it was in great shape and going to be greatly successful) so it's disingenuous to use that as an argument why it's OK for I3 to violate the social consensus.  I'm not even arguing that violating the consensus is the wrong move, just that if you want to take the position that there should be no constraints on what I3 can do in the future based on their previous statements, you should make that clear rather than positing some fantasy scenario where BTSX was apparently doomed until a few days ago.

Oh u think u know best for Bitshares!  Why cant u just get OVER IT!  Keep opinion to youself!  Stop hurting Bitshares because u angry.

[biophil]

I created a poll asking how 3rd-party DAC developers should airdrop: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10511.msg138222#msg138222

It would be best to come to consensus on this by November 5 so PTS can be priced appropriately before the snapshot!

[amencon]

I don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.

It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.

What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored.

  The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors.  That takes precedent over all others.  What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?

Come on guys let's not argue based on fear mongering tactics using "what if" statements.  You don't know that this merger won't result in everything I3 has done result in being worthless seeing how they are putting all their eggs in one basket now.

Even BM accurately stated that this move was what he thought was the right decision but that he could be wrong.

If your argument is that no statements or contracts or agreements should ever be binding for BM and I3 because you implicitly trust them to make the right decisions, then that is a perfectly fine argument to make with no need to invoke impossible to prove "what if" scenarios.

I would not call it fear mongering at all. Look at it this way:

They always speak clearly and honestly about the options.

People were upset when they moved away from mining: Now it is common sense!

People were upset when they introduced AGS: Now ICO's are common sense!

People were upset when they introduced DPoS: Now it is our best chance to survive!

People were upset that bitUSD was an experiment: They made it work!

Now people are upset at merger and share issuance, so is this time different? I don't think so; if you watch closely veterans of all stripes on this forum seem to agree with the proposal.

Just because a merger might be successful doesn't mean the old paradigm couldn't have been.  You nor anyone else knows that BTSX as a stand alone DAC was going to die for sure (in fact about a week ago everyone was convinced it was in great shape and going to be greatly successful) so it's disingenuous to use that as an argument why it's OK for I3 to violate the social consensus.  I'm not even arguing that violating the consensus is the wrong move, just that if you want to take the position that there should be no constraints on what I3 can do in the future based on their previous statements, you should make that clear rather than positing some fantasy scenario where BTSX was apparently doomed until a few days ago.

[Method-X]

I don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.

It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.

What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored.

  The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors.  That takes precedent over all others.  What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?

Come on guys let's not argue based on fear mongering tactics using "what if" statements.  You don't know that this merger won't result in everything I3 has done result in being worthless seeing how they are putting all their eggs in one basket now.

Even BM accurately stated that this move was what he thought was the right decision but that he could be wrong.

If your argument is that no statements or contracts or agreements should ever be binding for BM and I3 because you implicitly trust them to make the right decisions, then that is a perfectly fine argument to make with no need to invoke impossible to prove "what if" scenarios.

I would not call it fear mongering at all. Look at it this way:

They always speak clearly and honestly about the options.

People were upset when they moved away from mining: Now it is common sense!

People were upset when they introduced AGS: Now ICO's are common sense!

People were upset when they introduced DPoS: Now it is our best chance to survive!

People were upset that bitUSD was an experiment: They made it work!

Now people are upset at merger and share issuance, so is this time different? I don't think so; if you watch closely veterans of all stripes on this forum seem to agree with the proposal.

[GaltReport]

It was 3I who were going to be creating the vast majority of new DACs for PTS + AGS.  Now that 3I are going to be working on only BTS, the work for those future DACs is included in the PTS + AGS allocation.  There aren't tons of developers as far as I gather planning to release lots of DACs so it's almost entirely taken care of by airdropping to PTS + AGS as proposed.  PTS + AGS feel they are missing out on future DACs, when realistically, almost all of those future DACs were going to be made by 3I and now PTS + AGS have a stake in all their future work.  And just in case there are other developers with other DACs, they can snapshot BTS and include everyone.  It's not perfect as everyone knows but people talk as if they were expecting most new DACs to come from third parties when in reality PTS + AGS was another way to invest in 3I, and that's what they are getting.

Edit:  It appears there isn't a 'social consensus' anymore anyway on who 3rd party DACs (in the rare occasion they exist) they should snapshop in the future so it will probably just be up to the devs as it always was.

I pretty much agree with this.  People are worrying about imaginary future riches that they believe they will somehow be cheated out of.  Everyone has a part in the new DAC, let's make it the best DAC that we can.  It's not perfect for everyone.  Let's please just move forward and make the best of it. 

[amencon]

I don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.

It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.

What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored.

  The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors.  That takes precedent over all others.  What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?

Come on guys let's not argue based on fear mongering tactics using "what if" statements.  You don't know that this merger won't result in everything I3 has done result in being worthless seeing how they are putting all their eggs in one basket now.

Even BM accurately stated that this move was what he thought was the right decision but that he could be wrong.

If your argument is that no statements or contracts or agreements should ever be binding for BM and I3 because you implicitly trust them to make the right decisions, then that is a perfectly fine argument to make with no need to invoke impossible to prove "what if" scenarios.

[betax]

Thats why is important to clarify what happens next also, I read some other posts that future third party DACs should only honour PTS + AGS as usual. (@toast). I think on SuperDAC we get 10 + 10 but yes it could have been better.

Now what about the other points in the OP

[James212]

I don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.

It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.

What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored.

  The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors.  That takes precedent over all others.  What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?

[emski]

Keep it simple, I say.

Just merge the market caps and get it done. The proposal looks to be a simple change from new DACs honoring PTS/AGS to also honoring BTSX, all within a new BTS. The benefits far out way the losses.  +20% 

I just tried to point out why people might be upset and what part of the "contract" was breached. There are a lot of perspectives that show the proposed deal as fair.

[James212]

I don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.

It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.


    The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors.  That takes precedent over all others.  What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?
What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored.

[emski]

Everyone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?

In this (original) sense.
And more specifically these important bits.

No social contract has been broken! BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month.

I should stop arguing as all of this was said many times. The part for "total lifetime shares ever allocated" will not be fulfilled for future DACs. In the case of further dilution AGS/PTS will not be honored their 10% of the newly issued shares.
Once again I'm not arguing about the percents in the proposal. I'm just trying to explain what was breached in the contract and how. As stated before the proposal is fair in many perspectives.

I still don't understand your perspective completely. I described how I see it here. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406 Maybe you can describe how your differs based on this

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10367.msg136081#msg136081 If you want we can speak privately. I'm not sure I can explain it better.

I read that. Can you expand on that? "total lifetime shares ever allocated" what does that mean exactly for you?
What I said in response to that was:
"BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month."
Does that make sense?

You do not include the inevitable dilution via business delegates. New shares are going to be issued but the newly issued shares will not be distributed 10/10 to AGS/PTS. And this contradicts the "total lifetime shares ever allocated" rule. Furthermore for all future DACs post feb28 AGS/PTS holders get significantly less than promised. I've made some calculations here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10225.0 .  I understand that it might not be the original intent because this contract exists in another form stating that the allocation is valid only for genesis block. However failure to make this clear is significant fault IMHO.

EDIT1: added a point for future DACs

What is with my argument that BTS is not a new chain which would not give AGS/PTS any right at all?
I agree with you that AGS/PTS get too little but for a different reason.
Maybe we can discuss it on mumble. I am there now and will be until todays mumble at 9 pm eastern.

I cannot join in the next 5 hours.

[davidpbrown]

Keep it simple, I say.

Just merge the market caps and get it done. The proposal looks to be a simple change from new DACs honoring PTS/AGS to also honoring BTSX, all within a new BTS. The benefits far out way the losses.  +20% 

[Bitty]

Correct me if I'm wrong:
Post BTSX snapshot PTS/AGS holders are somewhat screwed but still get their shares in the merged DAC BTS?
PTS/AGS holders will still be honoured by third party DACs that might come out in the future?

Here is how I see it https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406

I guess you are right
Some of us, like myself, invested a substantial amount of money in PTS (and/or AGS) missing out on the BTSX snapshot, strongly having faith in the whole Bitshares platform and the power of the upcoming DACs.
The amount of shares in the new merger we will receive is painfully low, leading to some big losses in value...
The least the devs can do or try doing, is coming up with a solution to honour their early believers and supporters.
There must be some way to do this, right?

Right, it is a balance between the interest group you are in (I am in there too!) and those that bought BTSX on exchanges.  What is needed is a clear reasoning for what is done.

the creation of new shares might be a good solution for everybody:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10225.new#new

[santaclause102]

Everyone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?

In this (original) sense.
And more specifically these important bits.

No social contract has been broken! BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month.

I should stop arguing as all of this was said many times. The part for "total lifetime shares ever allocated" will not be fulfilled for future DACs. In the case of further dilution AGS/PTS will not be honored their 10% of the newly issued shares.
Once again I'm not arguing about the percents in the proposal. I'm just trying to explain what was breached in the contract and how. As stated before the proposal is fair in many perspectives.

I still don't understand your perspective completely. I described how I see it here. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406 Maybe you can describe how your differs based on this

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10367.msg136081#msg136081 If you want we can speak privately. I'm not sure I can explain it better.

I read that. Can you expand on that? "total lifetime shares ever allocated" what does that mean exactly for you?
What I said in response to that was:
"BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month."
Does that make sense?

You do not include the inevitable dilution via business delegates. New shares are going to be issued but the newly issued shares will not be distributed 10/10 to AGS/PTS. And this contradicts the "total lifetime shares ever allocated" rule. Furthermore for all future DACs post feb28 AGS/PTS holders get significantly less than promised. I've made some calculations here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10225.0 .  I understand that it might not be the original intent because this contract exists in another form stating that the allocation is valid only for genesis block. However failure to make this clear is significant fault IMHO.

EDIT1: added a point for future DACs

What is with my argument that BTS is not a new chain which would not give AGS/PTS any right at all?
I agree with you that AGS/PTS get too little but for a different reason.
Maybe we can discuss it on mumble. I am there now and will be until todays mumble at 9 pm eastern. 

[emski]

Everyone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?

In this (original) sense.
And more specifically these important bits.

No social contract has been broken! BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month.

I should stop arguing as all of this was said many times. The part for "total lifetime shares ever allocated" will not be fulfilled for future DACs. In the case of further dilution AGS/PTS will not be honored their 10% of the newly issued shares.
Once again I'm not arguing about the percents in the proposal. I'm just trying to explain what was breached in the contract and how. As stated before the proposal is fair in many perspectives.

I still don't understand your perspective completely. I described how I see it here. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406 Maybe you can describe how your differs based on this

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10367.msg136081#msg136081 If you want we can speak privately. I'm not sure I can explain it better.

I read that. Can you expand on that? "total lifetime shares ever allocated" what does that mean exactly for you?
What I said in response to that was:
"BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month."
Does that make sense?

You do not include the inevitable dilution via business delegates. New shares are going to be issued but the newly issued shares will not be distributed 10/10 to AGS/PTS. And this contradicts the "total lifetime shares ever allocated" rule. Furthermore for all future DACs post feb28 AGS/PTS holders get significantly less than promised. I've made some calculations here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10225.0 .  I understand that it might not be the original intent because this contract exists in another form stating that the allocation is valid only for genesis block. However failure to make this clear is significant fault IMHO.

EDIT1: added a point for future DACs

[santaclause102]

Correct me if I'm wrong:
Post BTSX snapshot PTS/AGS holders are somewhat screwed but still get their shares in the merged DAC BTS?
PTS/AGS holders will still be honoured by third party DACs that might come out in the future?

Here is how I see it https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406

I guess you are right
Some of us, like myself, invested a substantial amount of money in PTS (and/or AGS) missing out on the BTSX snapshot, strongly having faith in the whole Bitshares platform and the power of the upcoming DACs.
The amount of shares in the new merger we will receive is painfully low, leading to some big losses in value...
The least the devs can do or try doing, is coming up with a solution to honour their early believers and supporters.
There must be some way to do this, right?

Right, it is a balance between the interest group you are in (I am in there too!) and those that bought BTSX on exchanges.  What is needed is a clear reasoning for what is done.

[clayop]

What about this? Thoughts on it?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10353.msg137521#msg137521

[Bitty]

Correct me if I'm wrong:
Post BTSX snapshot PTS/AGS holders are somewhat screwed but still get their shares in the merged DAC BTS?
PTS/AGS holders will still be honoured by third party DACs that might come out in the future?

Here is how I see it https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406

I guess you are right
Some of us, like myself, invested a substantial amount of money in PTS (and/or AGS) missing out on the BTSX snapshot, strongly having faith in the whole Bitshares platform and the power of the upcoming DACs.
The amount of shares in the new merger we will receive is painfully low, leading to some big losses in value...
The least the devs can do or try doing, is coming up with a solution to honour their early believers and supporters.
There must be some way to do this, right?

[santaclause102]

Correct me if I'm wrong:
Post BTSX snapshot PTS/AGS holders are somewhat screwed but still get their shares in the merged DAC BTS?
PTS/AGS holders will still be honoured by third party DACs that might come out in the future?

Here is how I see it https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406

[CLains]

This is confusing territory, as large shareholders are in a get-consensus-quick mode where other considerations pale, so we need to be overly explicit: Presumably you are talking about what happens *after* the merge, in terms of honoring PTS&AGS holders in new DACs? Most people have not yet thought that far, at least I had not.. So here goes, thinking ahead:

Even after AGS/PTS is liquidated into BTS, they can be honored independently from their "final" snapshots (AGS is at end of donations, PTS at november 5th). We as a community of AGS/PTS investors can negotiate the snapshot terms for AGS/PTS relative to the enhanced BTS for new DACs developed by I3. Third party DACs will have to weigh their own considerations relative to the value of PTS/AGS holders versus the new BTS holders.

Aren't these considerations sufficient for now? What am I missing?

[matt608]

It was 3I who were going to be creating the vast majority of new DACs for PTS + AGS.  Now that 3I are going to be working on only BTS, the work for those future DACs is included in the PTS + AGS allocation.  There aren't tons of developers as far as I gather planning to release lots of DACs so it's almost entirely taken care of by airdropping to PTS + AGS as proposed.  PTS + AGS feel they are missing out on future DACs, when realistically, almost all of those future DACs were going to be made by 3I and now PTS + AGS have a stake in all their future work.  And just in case there are other developers with other DACs, they can snapshot BTS and include everyone.  It's not perfect as everyone knows but people talk as if they were expecting most new DACs to come from third parties when in reality PTS + AGS was another way to invest in 3I, and that's what they are getting.

Edit:  It appears there isn't a 'social consensus' anymore anyway on who 3rd party DACs (in the rare occasion they exist) they should snapshop in the future so it will probably just be up to the devs as it always was.

[santaclause102]

Everyone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?

In this (original) sense.
And more specifically these important bits.

No social contract has been broken! BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month.

I should stop arguing as all of this was said many times. The part for "total lifetime shares ever allocated" will not be fulfilled for future DACs. In the case of further dilution AGS/PTS will not be honored their 10% of the newly issued shares.
Once again I'm not arguing about the percents in the proposal. I'm just trying to explain what was breached in the contract and how. As stated before the proposal is fair in many perspectives.

I still don't understand your perspective completely. I described how I see it here. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406 Maybe you can describe how your differs based on this

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10367.msg136081#msg136081 If you want we can speak privately. I'm not sure I can explain it better.

I read that. Can you expand on that? "total lifetime shares ever allocated" what does that mean exactly for you?
What I said in response to that was:
"BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month."
Does that make sense?

[Bitty]

Correct me if I'm wrong:
Post BTSX snapshot PTS/AGS holders are somewhat screwed but still get their shares in the merged DAC BTS?
PTS/AGS holders will still be honoured by third party DACs that might come out in the future?

[emski]

Everyone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?

In this (original) sense.
And more specifically these important bits.

No social contract has been broken! BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month.

I should stop arguing as all of this was said many times. The part for "total lifetime shares ever allocated" will not be fulfilled for future DACs. In the case of further dilution AGS/PTS will not be honored their 10% of the newly issued shares.
Once again I'm not arguing about the percents in the proposal. I'm just trying to explain what was breached in the contract and how. As stated before the proposal is fair in many perspectives.

I still don't understand your perspective completely. I described how I see it here. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406 Maybe you can describe how your differs based on this

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10367.msg136081#msg136081 If you want we can speak privately. I'm not sure I can explain it better.

[santaclause102]

Everyone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?

In this (original) sense.
And more specifically these important bits.

No social contract has been broken! BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month.

I should stop arguing as all of this was said many times. The part for "total lifetime shares ever allocated" will not be fulfilled for future DACs. In the case of further dilution AGS/PTS will not be honored their 10% of the newly issued shares.
Once again I'm not arguing about the percents in the proposal. I'm just trying to explain what was breached in the contract and how. As stated before the proposal is fair in many perspectives.

I still don't understand your perspective completely. I described how I see it here. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406 Maybe you can describe how your differs based on this

[emski]

Everyone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?

In this (original) sense.
And more specifically these important bits.

No social contract has been broken! BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month.

I should stop arguing as all of this was said many times. The part for "total lifetime shares ever allocated" will not be fulfilled for future DACs. In the case of further dilution AGS/PTS will not be honored their 10% of the newly issued shares.
Once again I'm not arguing about the percents in the proposal. I'm just trying to explain what was breached in the contract and how. As stated before the proposal is fair in many perspectives.

[santaclause102]

Everyone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?

In this (original) sense.
And more specifically these important bits.

No social contract has been broken! BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month.

[Method-X]

I don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.

It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.

What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored.

[betax]

I understand how you feel, I have AGS (pre and post) and PTS

They have applied it (in a way) 10%: PTS  and 10% AGS. The problem is that parts of these come from DNS and VOTE. DNS is in full for PTS + AGS and extra if you bought / unlock the funds and transfer it to your wallet, more over development fund is not even counted. VOTE on the other part was not claimed, I forgot the ratio but it will then 1.5% for AGS/ PTS holders.

So what happens is that AGS / PTS get the cut on the new Super DAC based on the merging of DNS / VOTE and PTS / AGS.

The locking of funds is to avoid dumping changing of price.

Another thing will be to change the distribution but I don't think BTSX holders will agree and confuse everyone   2,702,702,702.70  (74 BTSX, 3, 3, 10, 10)

Most important

PTS / AGS should continue and the Social Contract should applied for Third Party DACs

PTS  / AGS could be an Asset of BTS if we want easy support.

Edit: Formatting

[emski]

I don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.

It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.

[Method-X]

I don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.

[emski]

Everyone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?

In this (original) sense.
And more specifically these important bits.

[santaclause102]

Everyone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?

[emski]

Social Contract
One of the main issues here is that it is not fulfilled. It lured a lot of people into trusting III. Even if they had no intention to follow the contract they didn't make enough effort to say it clear. With the proposal even if it is fair under some perspectives it is unfair in the terms of the contract. This is what bothers many people. There were many suggestions attempting to make an alternative proposal abiding the contract AND merging all into one chain. Apparently something else is needed to persuade III.

[betax]

Hi,

I would like to start a discussion on the future, the way I see the merger is that we are just creating a bigger DAC, with possibilities of of creating your own Dapps (application in SuperDAC) but continuing having the possibility of Third Party DACs using the bitshares toolkit which should continue to comply with the Social Contract.

DApps and toolkit
I presume this will be "like" Ethereum or a C++ version of it, it will be great to start thinking / documenting how to create new DApps and how a third party can benefit from the creation of DApps. Making the SuperDAC a decentralised application environment or OS. We could start discussion more detailed areas like UX (User Experience) for example one main OS like core applications with multiple applications, light wallets, light applications? etc.

Third party DACs
There is also the possibility of creating your own Third Party DAC, the only thing that has changed is that BitsharesX - DNS + VOTE and Play will be under the same umbrella (and of course much more in the future). These will have to comply with the Social Contract as before or a new one.

Social Contract
As noted before the Social Contract should be preserved for third party DACs, but here it could be extended to at least BTS (10%), PTS (10%), AGS (10%). Hopefully this way new and old investors will be rewarded in a multiple DAC scenario and the required compliance of Third Party DACs as the toolkit will significantly more advanced with the combined features.

Edit: It will be great that we keep the comments answering the bold headers above, this way we will to avoid silly debates on unrelated subjects, also avoid usage random pictures or metaphors so all international parties understand the thoughts. I hope this way we can all contribute to shape / understand the direction Also I hope that Bytemaster is allowed to comment before the PR lockout.