I have another idea of how to handle it... We can make a DAC that honors PTS/AGS 50/50 with no dilution, then a new DAC or version of this DAC is quickly proposed that allows dilution. A delegate is created (or other stake voting mechanism) and announce that in 2 months there will be a snapshot and every stake/share that is approving this delegate at snapshot time will be honored in the new chain with dilution. All others not approving can honor themselves in a separate chain without dilution.
My first impression is that this would be viewed as a coercive mechanism. It would certainly be divisive.
Regarding dilution, I do see that it might have some advantages over a one-time share allocation. Some people here argue that dilution could be good for fast-growing DACs with very uncertain future funding needs. But for these cases, a pre-arranged schedule of dilution (which is probably the only one that most shareholders would ever find palatable) doesn't seem to offer much additional flexibility anyways.
So, really, what can a pre-set schedule of dilution accomplish that a pre-allocation can't? It may be that dilution can be useful because it provides a "vesting" feature--not all of the funds are made available upfront, so there is less danger that a developer can walk away with 30% of the DAC. I think that is a valid point. However, pre-scheduled dilution has its own drawbacks. It is like paying someone in the hopes/expectations that they will do what's good for the network. I can see that there might be a lot of inefficient spending in such a system. At least with a pre-allocation, an honest group of developers or delegates can take a bounty-like approach where they can make sure they don't get much less than they paid for.
One thing that would make me a bit uncomfortable as a PTS/AGS investor is that the dilution rates that have been discussed here seem quite high to the point of disenfranchising early investors. For example, many investors probably bought into AGS, PTS thinking they would get a 35/35 allocation in some of the first round of DACs. By changing to a 35/35 allocation
with dilution, they now are effectively getting 15-20%. Perhaps that will eventually go to 10%. Where is the original 30% pre-allocation to non-investors going to go? If high rates of dilution are being considered, then perhaps there should be fewer (or no) shares pre-allocated. So, maybe it's a question of magnitude. If the benefits from dilution greatly exceed the amount of value transferred, then that would be great. But, as some here have argued, the true benefits (above and beyond pre-allocation or additional fundraising) have yet to be proven.
The pro-dilution folks seem to ignore (or at least downplay in importance) that dilution can give a negative perception to shareholders. And that is perhaps the chief disadvantage of dilution.
It makes the optics look bad and, rightly or wrongly, is easily misperceived by shareholders. The only way to get maximal acceptance and investor interest is to make sure everything is clear, transparent, and palatable to shareholders from the start. Perceptions are really important. There should be nothing to suggest that someone in power can game the system to extract or misuse wealth. I believe that misperceptions are one of the things that crippled Ripple early on. Many criticized Ripple heavily and labeled it a scam on account of the fact that they retained about 95% of the supply upfront, even though they promised to distribute 50% or so to grow the network. (Of course, Ripple was also closed-source initially, but most of the criticisms seemed to center around the initial and planned share distribution.) Rightly or wrongly, investors balked at what was perceived to be a grossly unfair system. A concern I have is that if shareholders in a DAC feel wronged and get sufficiently PO'ed, scrutiny and intervention by a regulator could become more likely, which is something that probably few people here want...
Whatever solution is chosen, I hope that developers always remember that every DAC is different and that public perceptions do matter--they matter a great deal. Let's learn from the experience of Ripple and others. Simply put, the optics have to look good from the start, otherwise a DAC will have a hard time gaining widespread acceptance and investor interest.