Each new BitUSD purchased adds at least that amount to the CAP of a DAC.
An outsider buying $10 million BitUSD today would raise the CAP of BTSX by at least $10 million or more.
So competing DACs would rather have their own 'X'USD adding value to their own DAC than use BitUSD from BTSX. Which is why we'd having competing BitAssets if we didn't merge & have everyone's interest aligned with people using BitAssets on BTS is my understanding.
But in a parallel argument, each asset (representing a DAC in my suggested model) on bitsharesX increases in CAP exactly the same way as shares are purchased?
Ok I missed that. I guess your model would require another 101 delegate system for each DAC and all the hassle and expense that entails. It could also diminish the network effect of single blockchain would get & the individual DACs might still be be exposed to BTSX failure risk.
If it's a user issued asset like on NXT, NXT only benefits from transaction fees. The CAP of the user issued asset doesn't add to the CAP of NXT just like MaidSafecoin is actually worth more than Mastercoin itself.
So putting it all on one blockchain maximises network effect & gives BTS shareholders maximum benefit from what would have been the CAP of individual DACs as well as the increase in CAP from anybody purchasing BitAssets. Not sure though.