Hi Charles, thanks for the reply, yes it was very witch hunty/paranoid
I didn't realise the benefactor would be public and tbh I misread '50% of the developers stake' to mean up to 50% of the entire stake.
So I interpreted it as you were saying that the DAC would have the appearance to the market of having a high valuation and being widely distributed when really there's a clandestine whale who would now control a majority share.
(Once there are many independent third party DAC's being released their strategies won't reflect on the whole BitShares ecosystem anyway.)
Usually if I'm going to post an accusation or something negative on a forum I sleep on it first, probably would have been wise in this case. Apologies.
No worries, I've adopted a thicker skin policy for the Bitshares forum. I think everyone- including me- needs to take a break from the past. It's unhealthy.
Cool
I actually do like reading your stuff even if I disagree, because I think you do make good intelligent thought provoking points.
For example I actually like the idea of transparent price floors in general. I remember when I first got into Bitcoin I felt long term supporters could help make Bitcoin more stable by instead of hoarding, selling a small % into the price rises to provide more liquidity, lessen volatility and then place buy orders for double the amount of BTC they just sold at 1/2 the price. (This floor would be re-inforced because others wanting to buy cheap BTC would place their buy orders above the strong floor, thereby creating a 'superfloor' - that would really help support a new volatile currency. In the worst case that the floor was broken it would just mean long term supporters ended up with more BTC than they had before. So kind of win-win.)
Your application of it here via the benefactor to soak up the Sharedrops or suggesting NXT could have bought up Sharedropped coins that were sold on the cheap, both highlight the problem I have with significant Sharedrops.
For me any marketing spend should have a positive net return, so when you give away free samples you should be expecting enough of the people who received them to become buyers, enough to at least offset the cost of the other free samples. (Sharedrops) But both your benefactor and NXT statements highlight that you believe what I do which is that in the short term at least - Significant Sharedrops will have big price suppressive effects on the DAC. (I guess you believe the longer term benefits in terms of perceived fairness and broader awareness base will slowly create more buying support for it vs. a competitor. )
However while many are fearful of a fork that has big Sharedrops,
I am fearful of fork that does almost no Sharedrops. If someone gave me a sample of company who's share price was declining in value because of the amount of share-dropping (Which we both seem to agree would happen in the short term) & I could see there was another DAC offering the exact same product that had a stable or rising share price then it would be for me illogical to hold on to a declining share price DAC when I could sell that for shares in a stable/rising company selling the same product. (So in effect a DAC that sharedropped would just be giving free advertising to a fork of a DAC that didn't - I'll try put in an example of how I think it could be applied at in my next post with Auroracoin.)
However there are a lot of people that share some of your views, Fuznuts, Luckybit, DA (-Stan) etc. I also don't think there are any plans yet to do a straight DPOS based currency coin yet which is what your suggestion was & I think that idea is a good one! & while I think most DAC's are more like businesses, with a DPOS currency there is perhaps a greater idea of maximum fairness & value to be gained from maximum alt-coin community support, so if there was ever a place to try out some of these ideas I think you've hit on the right one and I think it is definitely worth giving it a shot.