In the first part you go out of your way to agree with me that independent DACs are up to their creator. Then later you say they should never be made without innovations and list qualifications. Whaaat !??
The irony is that I made this post to help us and others from talking past each other. I have failed incredibly.
Independent DACs are up to the creators. That doesn't mean they'll have a community backing it. What I understand is that the community is what makes or breaks a DAC. If you created a Litecoin fork you wouldn't get even 50% of the Litecoin community, you would probably get a pump and dump from massive Litecoin miners who would use the money to buy the latest ASIC rig.
PoW communities made up almost entirely of miners aren't going to go running to Proof of Stake so I just don't think it makes any sense strategically.I don't think they have anything to gain and I don't think we have anything to gain. It would be like trying to get Bitcoin to accept Cooperative Proof of Stake and we see how conservative Bitcoin developers are.
To be fair these PoS technologies are untested so Litecoin wouldn't be quick to switch anyway but if somehow they could be made to switch why give them 90% of your technology when you get 0% from them? Sure you would get a pump and dump which would allow you to make quick money but you get no long term partnership like you could get from a Proof of Stake community with 50/50.
In my opinion if it's only 10% for our community then it's likely to fail because if the Litecoin community doesn't fall in love with the chain then our community will not be interested in the chain because the stake is way too small.
I'll stick to the 50/50 split because it's the only fair solution in a merger. If this were corporations would we give up 90% stake when our community will probably make up the vast majority of the users of the DAC? We provide all the users, the network effect, they take all 90% of the stake? If you merge communities you ultimately have to merge stakes in a new chain.
A misconception you may have is that you believe the Liteshares chain should be Litecoin 2. It's never going to be Litecoin 2. Just as Blackshares as I described was not meant to replace Blackcoin. It's meant to be an additional custom chain with the Blackcoin logo. It's to be our DAC which we share with Blackcoin community by branding and the 50/50 split. It could easily be 90% for us and 10% for the Blackcoin community, but then they would say it's unfair because it has their branding.
Bitshares has BitBTC in it right? Does that mean we owe the Bitcoin community 90% of the stake because it has BitBTC in it? Even if you put a Bitcoin skin on top and called it Bitcoinshares it still makes no sense to gift 90 of it to a sharedrop because the purpose of a sharedrop is to achieve long term support and participation.
It seems obvious to me that diluting the equity in a coin with 50/50 will kill any consideration of it actually being used.
I don't believe in these sorts of "gifts". That is the point. I also don't see why we should assume they deserve even a 50% stake. If we develop the fork we can give them whatever stake we feel is right and that could be 90% for us and 10% for them. And that would mean more people from our community would use the chain but when they are getting 10% of something for free which they'll dump for Bitcoins or Litecoins I don't see what difference it makes.
With a PoS community I would say these communities are likely to be active supporters of the DAC. They might actually start developing and updating the code. We might see new features that their developers put into it in the future. 50/50 would still be a good deal for them because we'd split it half and half. I don't think it's the same proposition with a PoS community because what if they decide not to dump and actually start using the DAC enough to compete with us in network effect?
So while I don't think Litecoin or Bitcoin would compete on network effect because they don't care (Bitcoin already has Colored Coins, Counterparty and Mastercoin), I don't see the Blackcoin community reacting the same way because they don't have these capabilities yet and clearly have shown that they are moving in this direction.
To sum up why I settle on 50/50 so strongly I look at this1) Network effect. We have it. 5000 members on our forum and most of the concepts including Sharedrops come from this community.
2) Long term users will mostly come from this community. It makes no sense to reward another community with 90% stake as a gift when the majority will cash out immediately and not be long term users of the technology. They'd just as likely use NXT, Mastercoin, or anything else if they want technology.
3. Without our community backing it then it's likely most altchains will fail. Many will be the same sort of pump and dump scams you see every day with no community behind it. What happened to the Silicon Valley coin? The Bitcointalk coin? These coins all failed because they dropped to a user base that doesn't care enough to use the technology.
I think in most altchains the primary users will come from this community. So if most of the volume comes from this community then most of the profit comes from this community. If that is the case then if it's not 50/50 then this community will simple be in a position to make a fork of the fork which is 50/50 and use that one. The other fork would get less volume and eventually whither and die.