I see absolutely no reason why we should pay an exchange for integrating BTS and/or BitAssets. After all, they're supposed to earn money from trade fees. So they should fund the necessary development themselves. Unless they're repaying the DAC's investment, which I find unlikely.
giving them coin in exchange for enlisting , that's the unwritten common rule for exchanges .
I don't agree with voting in a delegate specifically for an exchange. They are a for-profit business not a public good for the benefit of the BitShares ecosystem. If they are a worthwhile exchange, they shouldn't need an ongoing subsidy.
However, I can understand providing some initial subsidy in the form of helping them out with integrating the BitShares client software with their exchange or even providing an initial subsidy to cover their integration costs to offset their risk of investing time and resources for a coin that may not provide enough volume to provide them profit (of course that assumes that we
are confident that the BitShares markets on that exchange will have sufficient volume and liquidity, otherwise it is a waste of our money). The former can be done by having some of our devs help out with the integration process and offering technical support (although the bulk of the work should be done by the exchange's devs or they should pay our devs consulting fees), and in this case the devs are already paid through their own delegates. In the latter case, I think a delegate that is specifically for the purpose of providing small one-time lump sums to different projects in order to bootstrap them (like fund.bitsharesbreakout) is more appropriate. However, I don't like the idea of voting in a delegate specifically for the exchange.
Finally, I really wish we would put more resources into getting a decentralized BTC UIA on the BitShares blockchain so that we can start using our DEX rather than relying on these centralized exchanges (who in theory should be our competitors).