BTS used to by DVS the BTS has to be sold, taking value from BTS. There's no way a BTS delegate should pay 66% of their pay to AGS + PTS, which is how DVS is distributed. If it was a testing chain just for BTS alone with 100% BTS sharedrop that would be fine, and is another reason the sharedrop should have been just on BTS. BTS is the only coin that can fund it and it's BTS developers who are working on it. PTS + AGS have nothing to do with it. Unless devs now have no allegiance to BTS but to the toolkit? (while profitable)
It's 'dev choice' and devs have lots of PTS + AGS so they can drop 66% themselves if they want. The provided reason for the 66% giveaway was to get the support of AGS + PTS, except they (almost) have no market cap so they're worth much less as supporters. No 100% BTS holder would vote in a delegate to subsidies AGS + PTS (i.e. DVS). It's just a big mistake to drop on them when great lengths have been taken to streamline the BTS message, I mean, who are they working for? BTS or not?
People think its no big deal because it will be worthless but I'm not so sure. I've seen countless 'worthless' coins become very valuable, e.g. litecoin. Crypto is very unpredictable. We shouldn't underestimate random speculation on DevShares. There's no need to vote in any subsidy. If they dropped on just BTS we could organise something as a backup measure if necessary.
Don't want to stir the pot for the sake of it, just expressing my honest opinion as a community member.
Your statement that devs can drop 66% on themselves if they want is misleading in the extreme. Perhaps your implication would be true if they target some other coin (like Ripple) that has a very limited distribution which they own disproportionately. But we all know the heritage of AGS, PTS, and BTS and it is pretty hard to make the case that the decentralized free-lance team of developers working on DevShares have any kind of a significant individual ownership percentage or bias among the three mailing lists. Of course, if they did, everyone else had the same chance as to adjust their ownership ratios over the course of time too.
But such arguments miss the whole point. I'd like to see you repeat your analysis from the point of view of what motivated/motivates members of all three target demographics. What makes each valuable?
According to your theory, the market cap of a demographic determines its value. But the AGS demographic has zero market cap, yet it represents a mailing list of those known to make no-strings-attached donations to a crypto-currency cause. Priceless, if you are counting on a similar kind of support for your new asset.
Likewise, PTS holders represent a pure demographic of those willing to hold a simple currency for no other reason than a desire to own and support new products. They obviously must recognize the value of DAC ownership, understand share drops and do not insist on mining as a distribution method. Yet every asset they hold was mined into existence, for those who think that matters. For some demographics and developers this characteristic is... Priceless.
BTS is the most active demographic, but people hold BTS for many reasons, the least of which may be sharedrop targeting. Yet they are most likely to be actively using a robust set of new features. They represent a great demographic of active, informed
users, if that is important to a developer's bootstrap strategy.
So the decision is the developer's and depends solely on the developers' assessment of the relative value of these groups to her support-building strategy. It is clear to me why all three demographics are equally important to DevShares.
You will be much more likely to influence a developers' allocation if you argue why a particular demographic is more valuable and, more importantly, why giving it a higher percentage will
increase the support of its members. You also have to consider the possibility that any bias away from equal distribution will be perceived negatively by the group(s) you don't favor.
Sometimes, its just not worth that risk.