I like the idea of BTS prototypes, families etc (Stan defined below).
I would like to propose that BTS prototypes be launched as a PoS altcoin honouring PTS/AGS holders. The DACs that then launch will honour via PoS the specific BTS prototype altcoin.
This way investors can speculate/invest in the gambling DAC industry without being forced to invest in bitshares-lotto.
What if the bitsharesLotto DAC is a huge failure but I believe the gambling DAC industry will do very well in the future. I should be able to invest in the industry without being forced to buy into a bad company.
If the BTS-prototypes are launched as DACs they cannot be used to properly evaluate the markets pricing on the future of the gambling DAC industry because the prototype shares price will be skewed by the profitability/success of the particular DAC.
Launching BTS-prototypes will also get tradable value into the hands of PTS/AGS holders. We can then speculate on the industry as a whole without having to worry about a single DAC. If the first DAC (say bitshares-lotto) goes to zero we will still have a viable BTS-prototype with pegs to the value of future gambling DACs.
"A BTS prototype is any crypto-asset that gets some of its value from the fact that its shares represent an interest in one or more future crypto-equity products. They are assets whose value is derived from the market’s anticipated future value of a product line, company or even an industry....So the five proto-families shown in our family tree are just the first prototypes of representative DACs in that family....BTS Prototypes are sample Decentralized Autonomous Companies (DACs)."
This is very good thinking, worthy of careful consideration.
Should the blockchain from which all DACs in a market sector are spawned try to do anything but act as a proto-coin
for trading stakes in all those future blockchains?
Or should it be a proto-DAC
which also does something useful that serves as a reference design and adds value to that first proto-coin?
Keeping those roles separate, as you suggest, might make it easier for competitors to honor the proto-coin without honoring the first-mover DAC in that sector.
And it would avoid damaging the utility of the proto-coin if the first DAC instance is a dud.
On the other hand, does that make things too complicated while we are just getting started?
It would double the number of block-chains that need to find places to trade from 5 to 10 in the months ahead.
The immediate implication of your question is, "Should the near-term chain that first makes XTS liquid be retained as a permanent proto-chain with the actual exchange functions derived as one or more new chains forked from it?"