Shareholders definitely want the design of the DAC to protect them from each other. That's why transactions require signatures. This isn't about protecting them from themselves, as they can still use their shares for whatever they want. It's about protecting shareholders from tyranny of majority. A DAC's source code is like a nation's constitution. In theory, constitutions should define hard limits on the power of the various actors within the governmental system, but enforcement is a problem. With DACs, you have a business with source code that enforces its own rules. If you write those rules such that certain actors are overly dominant, you sacrifice much of that benefit.
Centralization and decentralization each have different merits for different applications. We all knew III and AGS were centrally controlled when we started contributing.
Trog, I understand your fears but I think you haven't thought it through. Take it step by step, how does anyone get taken advantage of?
There is no getting around the fact that a DAC that can't dilute all shareholders equally to fund growth is a DAC that rewards freeloaders and punishes contributors.
How on earth do you jump to this conclusion? It's not a matter of if a DAC can it's a matter of if a DAC should. I think we should look for every possible means to accomplish the same thing without diluting.
If we are talking about inflation would we say the same thing about the dollar? Do we need inflation because it rewards contributors and punishes freeloaders?
Now if these were voting shares and it were a proven business model which is profitable then I could understand but I don't think this sort of business is the kind of business which you can easily make a case for dilution. The main selling point for people to buy Bitshares is the fact that it's not diluting and the whole business is based on getting a lot of people to buy/use Bitshares or BitAssets.
Asset appreciation is how people can make a profit if they have a lot of patience and with some luck. It's not like a brick and mortar bank or credit union.
The first Bitshares X DAC is such a risk just to invest in the new business model that asking people to dilute is asking for too much from investors. In the long term if we find this business model is immensely profitable then you can dilute to expand the business.
But right now it's a horrible idea to treat it like an ordinary startup because most startups are bad investments specifically for these sorts of reasons.
Bitshares X has to be a successful investment or no one is going to invest in future chains. The market is also crowded and success is probably going to be measured by the sharp rise of the price on coinmarketcap or something similar.
Down the road success can be measured in user adoption. So the opinion is that depending on the business model it might make sense to dilute or not. I think for Bitshares it's a bad idea.
A better idea is to take something which is guaranteed to be profitable like the Bitshares Lotto DAC and dilute that to pay for development. Another way to do it is to take a group of DACs or chains and have some which dilute and some which don't. Bitshares X for example could never dilute but nothing stops Bitshares X from merging with Bitshares Y in such a way that the dilution from Bitshares Y pays for development of Bitshares X & Y.
So the answer is you can have some DACs which dilute and which send the money to a development fund for the entire ecosystem if you want to do it that way but the truth is I don't think you can create any new value by diluting/inflating. You're basically asking for credit on the back of the investors when you dilute. The investors have to hope that it's worth it because if its not then it's a loss. A lot of businesses during the dot com bubble have done stuff just like that.