the issue here is, that Stan has no controll over people launching a third party DAC ... he cannot even force Dacsunlimited to do it.
however .. pretty much the same as with the social consensus about PTS/AGS hold here too.. further, a initial distribution HAS to be defined .. if the 3rd party would choose to not know the social consensus ... aka. not snapshoting from btsX when creating a bitsharesX derivate within the exchange ecosystem ... would make the community stop any kind of support ...
It is up to each developer to propose and "negotiate" their distribution strategy with the stakeholders they want to attract. All we can do is work with the BitShares community to achieve a consensus. (This usually involves stating our opinion and hiding out in the BitShares Bunker for a few days till the smoke clears.)
Our stated opinion was that, since PTS and AGS holders got 100% of BTSX, honoring BTSX at 20% would be the moral and mathematical equivalent of honoring PTS/AGS at 10/10
immediately after the Feb 28th Snapshot.
But this would then begin to diverge as people traded BTSX. We concluded that this was a good thing since BTSX would now be a more accurate demographic of those who want to own a DAC eXchange than PTS/AGS and therefore would probably be what eXchange developers would prefer to target with their free samples. In essence, they would be targeting active owners/users of an eXchange. Perfect.
We also concluded that this would be fair to PTS/AGS holders because it was their choice whether to keep or sell their stake in that demographic.
Now, what to do with the other 80% is a case each developer has to make. It is clear that some of it should be set aside to pay delegates so that the DAC can attract people to that role who are capable of attracting voters and allocating development and operational funds. It might be justified to set aside some to attract other demographics and/or other partners the DAC needs. There may need to be some funds set aside to develop the new concept, i.e. to pay the people you need to build the DAC before launch. After launch, we think allocating shares for further development and maintenance should take place through the delegates, not necessarily a big war chest for the original developer who could theoretically lose interest and retire.
But all these things are free for each developer to negotiate with the collection of stakeholders she needs to make the DAC a success. If she gets it wrong, someone will clone it and do the allocation differently.
All that said, it is still important to have the benefits of holding shares in PTS, AGS, BTSX, and any future genre-defining protoDACs be clear and unambiguous. After all, this honor is part of what defined the value of that DAC.
BTSX holders should therefore get at least 20% of new
eXchange DACs. If the new exchange is just a clone with a few different parameters and no real development or operational expenses, then that percentage should be much higher - with funds set aside for delegates being the only compelling exception we see in general.
If someone launches a BitShares DAC outside the eXchange family, then the consensus was to honor PTS and AGS holders who continued to participate after February 28th. The family of non-exchange DACs already announced all fall into this category, since they were represented as such during the AGS campaign.
Finally, we have to give developers the freedom to negotiate as they develop and and reason about the optimum mix. The first mix they ever mention when they are new and have done no great amount of thinking should not be considered an iron-clad commitment until they state it as such. Usually this should happen at the time the snapshot date is announced, leaving at least two weeks for people to decide how to position their own proto-portfolio.