typo

 "however, the trust moddel is different in"

Typo

"wealth transfer to miners which waist most of it in the mining process"

All cars are basically the same: Mostly they have four wheels, an engine, a steering wheel, brakes, etc. However no one would argue, rationally, that all automotive companies should merge. The diversity of needs and desires of the market supports different approaches to the same problem.

The crypto space needs to be the same to avoid dieing to group think. While I don't support the open hostility common between competing crypto technologies the competition for market share is good for everyone.

Automakers do share a lot of components such as engines and gas caps. They recognize that's its a waste if resources to have  50 versions basic components such as gas caps, windshield wipers , etc.

http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/platform-sharing-for-dummies-feature

Quote from: Empirical1.1 on December 26, 2014, 12:35:44 am

Quote from: islandking on December 25, 2014, 11:57:25 pm

Quote from: Ander on December 25, 2014, 11:46:06 pm

Sell your PTS, buy some BTS, and release your video.

  We all need to be on the same team for this to be extremely successful.

By analogy, I think it's fine for shareholders to have positions in and support multiple companies and even direct competitors.

But I don't think it's OK to give 33% equity to a competitor in anything without shareholder approval though. Especially, when said shareholders have just paid a fortune to buy out said competitor.

Sharedrops are given to the owners/customers of a competitor, not to the competitor. 
This is a valid concept that may or may not entice some of them away from the competitor.
(It hasn't really been tried yet except in some ancient discussion about DNS sharedropping on Namecoin users.)

In the case of DevShares, its intended customer base is DPOS developers and ecosystem partners, including those who may prefer the new PTS positioning as a "neutral" share drop target.  So naturally its sharedrop should be engineered to attract such customers wherever we can find them.  The only other airdroppable source of potential DPOS customers is PLAY and MUSIC.  I can see advantages to trying to motivate their developers to use the same test chain as well.  Standardization, cross-pollination of ideas, more testing on common code modules and continued code compatibility testing come to mind.

Many advantages, come to think of it.  Hmmmm....

If other developers have chosen dpos to use for their project then they have shown that they are interested in developing dpos. Assuming they open source their code then we can can evaluate it and decide if its worth adding to bts. If they don't open source it then they don't have an interest in helping bts anyway.

What are the scaling limitations if any?

Its needed to differentiate. BitUSD and USD may have similar value, but they have very different features.

There's need to be an official blog post on the site explaining the relationship of these different projects to BitShares. That will help eleviate some of the confusion for newbs (and regulars too)