One big hurdle in adoption is that BTS is 'pre-mined' and the early stakeholders control it. I had that reaction and that's what turned me off initially when I first learned about it in a webinar late last year. Bytemaster responded very well to Andreas Antonopoulus's questions about it here: http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-129-dogeparty-and-delegated-proof-of-stake
I agree logically and economically the way BTS was created and has grown makes perfect sense as a startup business, but it is a very difficult psychological hurdle to overcome, especially with something that is perceived as sacred as money. I also don't like the feeling of being a late adopter and it's the same problem Bitcoin had when prices started rising quickly.... It's the economics of envy as Bytemaster mentioned. I'm an anarchocapitalist and it took me a while to overcome the psychological hurdle so I can't imagine what the average person would have to go through to understand. Sometimes I wonder if a 100% freely distributed coin with built in referral incentives and inflation going to development might not be more appealing for mass marketing and network effect. On the other hand when people buy something, people value it more, perceive it to have greater value, have a greater sense of ownership of both the asset and their decisions. A purchase can create a commitment & consistency bias.
In any case I think messaging is incredibly important to address this question. I think the focus should probably move away from Bitshares as a global currency even though that is an appropriate label. The 'Decentralized Exchange' tagline and rebranding is great because it emphasizes a different aspect of Bitshares and complements Bitcoin. Promoting Bitshares as a company also makes sense and will make it easier for people to accept. You can just tell people they are buying shares in a company like Apple Inc. in 1980... better yet it's one of the very first Distributed Autonomous Companies ever! You can further explain that Bitshares has an explicit revenue model as a service that charges transaction fees that are eventually paid as dividends to the company that will drive the value of the company. --BTW since transaction fees may eventually outpace the pay for delegates or any needs for the system, doesn't it mean that way far out in the future if everyone is using Bitshares that the transaction costs will eventually just go back to the users/shareholders and it really is more like a mutual benefit organization then a typical for-profit organization? Pretty fascinating to think about.... maybe we should call it a mutual benefit organization than a company then? Wouldn't the 'mutual benefit organization' idea dispel the psychological hurdle I am describing? Am I missing something? Curious to know your thoughts. Thanks.