I find it funny that people are using reputation, a form of trust, and decentralization, a trustless endeavor in the same thread.
We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely. Not only that, but we are arguing against using our very own product to make it happen. No rational person could argue that this is unfair. If you're a developer, you get Dan or 2 other devs to sign off on your vest every month. Simple, effective, and completely obvious. Show me one company that will grant you an equity package that becomes liquid over time, but is granted in entirety upfront without any regard for your performance or status as an employee.
Outside of your issues with Dan giving grants to developers, "performance-based compensation" has not been "abandoned completely".
I'm really starting to question your motives. You say so many things that it almost seems you're more about the FUD than the truth.
How can this be FUD? These funds were donated for development and marketing. Is it too much to ask for transparency and accountability? If this is a one-time grant for past work then it would make sense that it was given without any precondition. If it is intended to be part of their ongoing compensation then it makes no sense to hand it out all at once. I was led to believe that all of the dev funds that are allotted for future dev and marketing work would be divided up and simply granted to the devs. We may never know what the plan is. We'll just have to watch the blockchain and take our best guess ...
FTFY
It's quite clear those funds will not be used for Marketing as they are now putting the onus on income/cash strapped delegates to do the leg work that was supposed to be done by I3. There are multiple "marketing delegates" that would love to do something but just can't because they didn't have 30k PTS each or 5k BTC and to expect otherwise is ridiculous and laughable. The intention of the donations were all encompassing to the project. Now those funds have been locked into the pockets of a few Devs who some most likely won't be around in 2 years unless market share and participation skyrocket. As Toast said, he could make $150k at google, but out of the goodness of his heart, he choose to work on Bitshares. Without adoption and appreciation the opportunity cost Toast and the others so carefully weighed will begin to teeter the other way and then they will be gone. With out marketing and adoption this will be for not. BTC has the market share and invested innovators spending money to keep it going strong. Stronger than Bitshares and the minimal amounts of cash delegates will be able to spend on marketing. As of the end of the month a marketing delegate will be able to max out at 50 BTS per block. At current dollar prices, that is equal to $2k per month gross if ALL BTS is converted to the dollar. Then they will have to set aside taxes, rent, food, and wait, there is nothing left and no time to do anything because they still have to work a regular job just to support their family.
What should have happened is, get rid of the vesting period for PTS and dole out the BTS from those PTS to marketing delegates on a monthly basis. This way you could see the work being done and continue to pay them if they keep doing their job. Then you could also pay the Devs a monthly stipend too. As BTS rises, you are paying out a smaller number of BTS shares, stretching the amount of funds you have to actually pay out over future times. As of now, you put all the appreciation into those who have already been paid for what they have done all in the form of a blank check for services not yet rendered.
I am with Alphabar. You need transparency and safety nets.