coins shouldn't be stores of value to the first couple hundred nerds that figured out how to get their hands on them.

Isn't that exactly how Steem functions?  i.e.  Smooth becoming an instant millionaire

2. For economic reasons, miners spend less money on mining than they can earn by producing blocks. You propose to reward miners with TX fees, but TX fees are very low in all crypto coins. This means the global hash rate will be very low in your chain, which means a determined attacker can easily take control (i. e. >50% of the block producers).

Well, this is the same system as Bitcoin, so that would be more of a you don't think Bitcoin will work complaint.

3. By using a separate token for mining and buying into the top block producers you run into the nothing-at-stake problem, or a variant of it. An attacker can mine these tokens over a long time, then spend all of them at once, in order to take over the chain (i. e. buy >50% of the block producer slots).

Yea, I thought about this problem already.  What I posted was a preliminary idea on how to get a system like this to work.  The base layer tokens would just follow the longest chain rule and probably need to have an expiration date after a certain number of blocks deep.  A reverse confirmation system if you will.

Exactly what kind of glowing response do you expect by calling someone 'satan Larimer'?!

If you want to be taken seriously then state the party you wish to address, and get a response from, with their proper name, and with respect.

It wasn't me that created that phrase.  I saw someone else  call him that and co-opted it because it's hilarious.

Why is our platform essentially being overlooked?

That's the easiest question to answer this board has ever seen.  It's because Bitshares is designed by engineers for engineers.

1)  Bitshares is a lifestyle rather than a currency - The consensus mechanism requires constant user input and attention when the #1 thing people want out of a currency is straightforward simplicity.  If you wanted to keep voting for some reason, you would need a fallback mechanism that occurs when people don't vote, like automatically voting for whoever puts up the largest amount of collateral locked for an extended period of time.  Larimer's new blog post about PoW even favors scraping voting entirely for a collateral bid system where users are required to lock coins for a duration in order to be selected as miners/delegates.

2)  Bitshares is anti-new user with high barrier of entry - To lure in large amounts of new capital, it's required that people be able to buy their way in as delegates instead of having to campaign to become one.  The essence of all proof of stake systems relies on large investors not trying to destroy their investments on purpose, so it's completely foolish to try and diverge from that idea.  The campaigning part also creates centralization by having information gatekeepers control the election process, which currently consists of one website (this one).  You control the flow of information and you control the election process.

3)  The "shares" terminology probably never should have even been used in the first place - The native currency of any crypto will always be more important than any of it's derivatives.  "Smart coins" are by definition just a bucket shop.  The platform should be focused on the value of it's native currency over anything else.  Having an exchange or whatever is just a side benefit.

4)  Larimer insistence on running a business the opposite of how any normal business is run - Businesses in the real world run at a loss until they can attract clients.  Larimer keeps insisting Bitshares run at a profit when there are no actual customers using the platform for the system to generate profit from.  If there's only 1 user instead of your expected million users, you don't raise transaction fees on the 1 user to make up for it.

5)  Referral system - The vast majority of crypto users see the referral system as some kind of late night infomercial scheme that severely devalues the integrity of the product in general and will cause people to avoid Bitshares entirely

The list goes on....

The most efficient solution is one run by an impeccably trustworthy benevolent dictator.  That Day is coming, but until then

I'm confused on just what this statement is supposed to mean.  Is this some type of bible prophecy?  I don't get it.

Bitcoin is backed by the odds of the legacy financial system imploding.  None of that other stuff matters.  Since there's been no 1776 against the Federal Reserve so far, it's pretty damn obvious nobody is interested in switching unless the legacy system goes down.

You guys cannot be serious.  This idea and the referral system are both bad ideas.  The platform isn't supposed to be profitable with 0 users, stop pretending it should be.  Just like any new business, you run in the negative until you attract lots of users, THEN you profit afterwards.

Fees are too high because the referral system incurs a 400% markup from 5 to 20.  Any legit referral system should only incur something like a 5-30% markup max, not 400%.  Bytemaster wrongfully assumes that it's fine to have this dynamic because you can just "become a member" to lower fees, yet the fee for membership system is WIDLY unpopular amongst any average person in crypto you ask.  They're far more likely to just boycott the system entirely rather than pay any membership fee.  The only solution is to lower the subsidy for the referral system drasically, or abolish it entirely.  The current paradigm does not work whatsoever.

Bytemaster only seems to make decisions under the idea of "What will it take to make Bitshares profitable?" instead of "What will it take for people like r0ach to buy bitshares at all in the first place?".  He's acting like he has a captive audience.  That's not even close to the reality of the situation.  If you add some feature that's repulsive to users, nobody is going to be utilizing that mechanism to make the system profitable because nobody will be using the system at all in the first place!  It will just be an unused thing that sits there.