When the deal gets better for someone, it gets worse for someone else.
If I have a company and people pay for computer hardware, electricity, malware developers, mining pools, cost of acquiring and putting setting everything up, etc. to get a share in my company
then the only winner is the third party services. Why? Because the money going into these services do not add any value. Why do they not add value? Because the type of security that they help provide can be replaced with a type of security that costs nothing.
With the introduction of AGS, PTS holders could add value to the company directly by investing in AGS. Now suddenly Invictus is a first-mover in the realm of acquiring serious funding. With the old PTS model Invictus was backed by a tiny team of coders with a few dollars up their sleeve. With AGS we're now sitting on PTS backed by a growing team of coders with millions of dollars to spend on development, legal issues, promotion, etc.
If you don't think Bitshares will be worth anything, then just sell some PTS now (they're as high as BTC was at 1000+), and then buy them back after the snapshot. Or use the money to buy Bitshares after launch. From an investor perspective the ROI is off the charts every way.
You may have a point if you discuss promises, etc. but that's another discussion. As far as ROI goes I don't see how PTS holders are losing out. Their company were the first to replace a ridiculous business model with an ingenious and profitable one. We'll see in a few months time though.. This is a rapidly evolving field and everybody will constantly be making mistakes.