I think it would be interesting to see additional application specific reputation chains launch.  We could have the equivalent of eBay feedback ratings on a one year (or however long) rolling chain secured with POW and reputation risk to kill spam.  We could have dynamic webs of trust for distributed accreditation for basically any particular task or product, with a standard aggregate-able review structure for each domain.  This could replace diplomas and resumes completely.

If I'm missing any existing plans for implementing these functions, I'd appreciate links.

http://the-iland.net/static/downloads/TransactionsAsProofOfStake.pdf

Pages 5 and 6 seem to address these issues.  Also, I suspect that there's a maximum on coin day accumulation.  When the inactivity fee is charged, doesn't this effectively reset the coin age to 0?

Good call.  Someone do it.

This may be too abstract for your purposes, but the most useful non-technical teaching aid I've found for DACs is languages.  A language is just a consensus on grammatical structure and word definitions.  When enough people share a sufficient consensus on those things, they're part of the same network, and receive utility from being able to communicate with the rest of the network.  Once you get people thinking about their native language as an abstract decentralized entity with an apparent life of its own that provides value to its users, it makes more sense that other classes of such entities could be made.

I don't quite get this discussion.  The AGS funding was all sent in voluntarily based on trust that the BitShares team would use it efficiently to build the DAC ecosystem.  Part of that trust is that the team would be receptive to the best ideas from the community, but which are best is subjective and determined by those with the private keys.  If community members wanted to keep direct ultimate control of these funds, they shouldn't given up control of them in the first place.  Pressuring those entrusted with these funds by the community to give direct control of a portion to a subset of the community against their better judgement would turn this into a redistribution platform rather than voluntary trust based stewardship.

There's a massive reward for building a truly successful DAC and being one of the earliest investors in it.  Any sort of artificial reward based on contrived standards of success only incentivizes faking success well enough to meet the standards.

I just got back from the conference, and I think it went really well.  The BitShares guys were doing a ridiculous number of interviews, and I think a lot of good networking came out of it also.

If they were equals, they would already be building their projects and giving other people bounties, not waiting for bounties before getting started.  We're all here because we're convinced that Bytemaster and the rest of the Invictus team is on to something and is offering something of value.  There are good reasons for honoring the social consensus, and there's no reason for any developers to be left without a stake in their own ventures as you suggest.

Wouldn't that cause the actual wallet balance to be confusing to the individual transacting as his % would change by a different amount then he transacted with.  Seems like it could be a source of confusion.

Last I heard was that balance was to be displayed as (yourRealBalance/totalRealSupply)*4,000,000,000.  I believe the number of zeros on the final multiplier is still flexible.  That part is purely cosmetic, but people do love large numbers.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3024.0

Since you'll enter transactions in the same units in which your balance is displayed, the numbers should all be intuitive.  So in this case with a real balance of 30, and a total supply of 4,000,000, your displayed balance would be (30/4,000,000)*4,000,000,000=30,000.  If you enter to send 5000 of that displayed balance, it would send a real balance of (5000*4,000,000)/4,000,000,000=5.  This would leave your real balance at 25, which would display as  (25/4,000,000)*4,000,000,000=25,000 as expected.  If you mean people being confused by the transaction fees, I don't think it will be any more confusing than Bitcoin transaction fee deductions.