With inflation and our voter turnout levels, it is likely good to have a benevolent large stake-holder. I suppose one could say their faith in Dan has been lost after changing of social consensus etc. If you do not take this view, and think it was all ultimately for the better then one should be happy that they have such a large stake. The fact is that the pot of money that has been created via share creation will need to be defended.
Yip I do not take that view, I'm happy there are large benevolent voting stakes but I'd still like limits & I'm also concerned with how the market may view things. On a personal level I actually get more concerned seeing BTC38 etc. having a 10%+ stake, even though I'm sure they're lovely people.
I think the threat of the Vote DAC made BTSX realise the need for compromise, merging & dilution. However PTS & AGS weren't put in that situation. I think if BTSX had added dilution and started merging and competing, PTS & AGS may have realised like BTSX did, their models were not competitive & that the deal to bring them in and give them nearly 10% in BTS(X) again, was actually very generous and a way for BM to include all supporting parties in his vision. Having said that PTS & AGS don't have tools for consensus so any significant change was going to be tough. I'm looking forward to moving on with some certainty myself.
I never said anything about no limits. I didn't go into defining what large is, but as you pointed out exchanges might very well surpass I3.
Yes, BTC38 having 10% should concern you far more. And that 10% needs equally large %s to defend with.
btw ..
One could also claim that the "very generous" amount paid to PTS/AGS just barely covered the large value in competing DACs that would have been diversified from PTS/AGS holder's point of view. I don't know. I'm wishy on the subject, so I'll take that as the proposal being done fairly.
However, I didn't really think we needed to bring that up in this thread.