In the same way, society has effectively nullified copyright law (for personal use). 

I completely disagree. Perhaps your peers have done so, but I feel confident that the majority has not. For example, ask a sampling of Americans if they think it's OK to pirate the new Star Wars movie, and watch it for free (for personal use).

If this were OK, the movie would likely not have been produced, since it would not earn nearly as much revenue.

if anyone can help find the Hacker and find those coins back, i will pay all the bitcions to you. just want the name of hacker.

Wait... you will pay 800 bitcoins (current value $360000 USD) in order to recover 3 million BTS (current value $11000). That doesn't seem quite right to me. 

Does this mean you will no longer be a contractor for Cryptonomex?

At the moment, the assets are pretty hard to value, though.

My question isn't about valuing UIAs. I'm pointing out that BTS that's currently locked as collateral doesn't appear in the BTS richlist at all.

The kind of advertising we need right now is education based marketing

create a bunch of videos and teach people how to use our products.

I proposed to do exactly that in this thread: Delegate idea: Chronos Crypto Videos. More details and discussion in this thread: Walkthrough videos you would you like to see. I run the Chronos Crypto Youtube Channel, and could produce such videos. Community response was a bit lukewarm, and the video production delegate/worker was never voted in.

Now that BTS 2.0 has launched, perhaps it's time to revisit this topic?

Paying a negative fee immediately from the buyer who pays a positive fee is nothing more than shifting the price.  It is a meaningless change.

I disagree that it is meaningless. It rewards makers, which rewards providing liquidity (by definition). Liquidity is orders on the books. The 0.2% taker fee penalizes order taking, which also helps liquidity (by definition, taking orders will reduce liquidity).

Consider this thought experiment: what if the maker fee were negative 25%? People would bring the spread to nearly nothing, in an attempt to earn this huge bonus. That would make for much deeper liquidity, but few traders would fill orders because of the taker fee. So, the sweet spot is somewhere less than 25% rebate. 

Another thought experiment: what if maker fee were positive 25%, to be paid to the taker? The spread would become enormous, as traders tried to avoid getting filled.

Conclusion: you can influence the spread, and total liquidity, by adjusting this parameter.

The corresponding taker fee could be offset by somewhat reducing the order placement fee, if desired.

Easy suggestions:

-Switch the default chart interval to 1 day - those 1h periods of no trading activity look embarrassing.
-In the All Markets list, sort by the Volume column by default. Polo does this.

Its all about giving the impression of an active exchange where users feel its worth spending their time.

I agree with both of these. The first thing I do is sort by volume when I want to eyeball recent active markets.