Regardless of his vote - alt is the most productive and beneficial thing that is happening to  BTS!!!!

You are mixing short term and long term benefits. It doesn't help much if alt is doing something that creates short term benefits for Bitshares right now if he is at the same time trying to hamper the development of Bitshares and prevent it becoming a succesful DAC.

Since the sharedrop is 1:1 with no shares brought into existence, then it does not follow to me that BItShares stake holders will be hurt. BitShares might be hurt or might be helped, but it seems likely that shareholders would benefit.

Forks didn't kill Bitcoin. They spawned a legion of developers.

Bitshares will definitely hurt. Some developers move to the new chain which will slow down development. Some investors will sell their BTS to buy shares from new chain, which will lower the price. We might very well get all time low, if other traders realize that developers are leaving Bitshares for a new project. Some active users will leave our internal exchange, which decreases trading. Some members of our current community will stop marketing Bitshares and focus on the new chain.

BTS-owners will get new shares in sharedrop, but it seems to me that tonyk have no idea what he is doing. Quick and half-assed fork will probably fail and the value of new shares will remain very low, so it doesn't compensate the losses from BTS price decline.

We are not in the same position as Bitcoin was. There is no surplus of developers eagerly waiting to join a development team. Talent has been already scattered in hundreds of different projects and it's quite difficult for new projects to attract people who know what they are doing. It might happen but I wouldn't count on it, especially if the project is founded quickly and haphazardly.

If there is going to be fork, it has to be done properly. The goal should be the destruction of Bitshares so that there won't be two competing projects that will eat each others resources.

This is just the nature of the blockchain business. It's not easy to find people who can build profitable business on blockchain. It requires lots of trial and error.

Pretty much every other project is in a same situation. Much hype but no results.

But I have to somewhat agree with OP. Bitshares has been really bad at selecting business partners. Hopefully we can learn someday how to recognize good partners and discard bad ones.

The cat is out of the bag as far bts goes. Its nearly impossible to teturn all bts back onto dex. The amount of resources it would take would be  better used going forward with liquidity plans already in place. A system like this has to be implemented from scratch in a new chain. Its a waste of time trying to undo what has been done in bts.

I still think that creation of bitBTS would solve the transition problem from current system to a non-transferable BTS. Other exchanges could easily transform their BTS to bitBTS (or trade it in our internal exchange) and continue like nothing happened.

Do not include dex or shares in a name. While many people here seem to like to talk about decentralized exchange, I don't think it really is a good selling point. Other people don't seem to care about it very much. And it is a little bit vague – how is it decentralized if the exchange still exists in one blockchain?

Name has to be easy to pronounce for everybody around the world. Bitcoin is a good name, it doesn't have any sounds that are difficult for most people.

So... Now that I finally have some time to think this more, I'd like to break the proposal to pieces and think if we want to or need to implement them all. All at once or maybe some parts first and others later?

BTS will be changed to be non-transferable

This is the best part of the proposal. I also think this is a no-brainer, we need to do this sooner or later. Reason is – as it has been stated already on this thread – that we need to get BTS out of other exchanges.

There is already at least one exchange voting: Yunbi. It's not very good for Bitshares because it's known that people at Yunbi are not interested in being part of development of Bitshares. Currently laomao is voting for zero worker proposals. So basically they are polluting the voting pool with their apathetic votes.

Also they don't have skin in the game, they aren't voting with their own money but with money of their customers. They are not going to suffer directly if they vote badly, so they don't even have sufficient incentive to vote well. On the other hand, exchanges might have an incentive to vote harmfully if they feel that Bitshares will steal all their customers.

Biggest problem is the transition from current system to non-transferableness of BTS. First and foremost we should make clear to everybody why this will be done so that there won't be any panic selling. All or at least most of the BTS owners should know that this will be coming and accept that.

As far as I can see, creation of bitBTS would be practical way of doing the transition smoothly. Exchanges could change their BTS stack to bitBTS, which their customers could transfer to themselves freely. Customers of exchanges wouldn't lose anything because they have already given up a possibility to vote by storing their BTS in the exchange. Value of their holdings would remain same, because bitBTS is naturally backed with 100 % of BTS and could be force settled anytime in the Bitshares blockchain. Tonyk, any thoughts on this?

Also it is true that demand for smartcoins is still quite low. What if we couldn't get enough demand for them? In that case bitBTS would be a necessarily to have so that we would have at least one asset that has demand in outside exchanges.

BTS owners will get dividend from proceeds of the DAC

Great idea and will incentivize owning BTS.

If we would like to implement this right now, it could be done independently with a worker proposal.

But one important thing is to discuss about the role of reserve pool. How much of the proceeds would go to shareholders and how much to reserve pool? We can't give everything for shareholders because it would drain the reserve pool in the long run.

There was also an idea of giving proceeds only for LTMs and AMs instead of all BTS owners, which I think is quite compelling.

Core token will be bitUSD

This is something that I'm not really sure about. Maybe a good thing, but it needs to be analyzed more thoroughly.

BTS will be used (mostly?) only to back bitUSD and other smartcoins will be backed with bitUSD

Would this be a forced feature or voluntary but preferred?

Is it already possible to create smartcoins with some other asset backing than BTS?

This would definitely create a huge demand for bitUSD. Obviously a good thing, but I'm not sure if we really need to do it.

If BTS is traded mainly against bitUSD, doesn't it reduce the liquidity of it? I would imagine that it would be a good thing to have several different active trading pairs for BTS to keep the pegs tighter.

Do traders have enough incentives to create other smartcoins? For example, if gold is gaining value against USD, will traders use bitUSD to create bitGOLD?

17. Finnish; fi (Suomi) - HYVÄKSYTTÄVÄ,

Hyväksyttävä is not a correct choice here. I would replace it with kelpaa täällä. Maybe not an optimal expression but best I can come up with right now. A minor problem is that smarcoins is plural and bitcoin is singular.

Accepted here is quite simple english so most people will understand what it means. If you don't have a good translation for some languages, maybe better just use the english version.

Thanks, good to know it's being taken care of.