I would vote you ,but I have a question ,
why you using BTS delegate pay to support 3rd part DAC that tend to share drop to bts , what they can bring to BTS?
Where did he say he was using the BTS pay to support a 3rd party DAC?
In essence I am. I am (helping) support my own work with this delegate (with $250-300/month) and also planning to pay gamey the funds back that I now owe him after finding out it was him paying out of pocket for the beyond bitcoin soundcloud and not the original funds. And I will be holding hangouts for competing chains based on the % they sharedrop on shareholders.
So let's get into this a little bit. This is an important question and I think it is important to answer it, as always, honestly.
The Question really comes down to if you just want to have a huge BTS exchange that is someday worth 300+ billion dollars...or if you want to have that very same stake in addition to 10, 20, 30...even 40% of your original stake in other competitors that clone BitShares' Toolkit to build other 100+ billion dollar crypto-industries. It doesn't really matter what any of us here think, though, because the trend is already happening.
For instance. Let's look at NXT. NXT already has Horizon (HZ) and NEM growing from its original code. From that they will get some competition, but that only means that the competition will breed high quality code being written and systems being built that will be easily "stolen" by any of those competing exchanges. This means that an innovation on one Chain is quite literally pennies on the dollar for all others like it to include. Not only that, but the more NXT versions pop up and compete against one another, the more likely that new ones will continue to be born and compete in that ecosystem. Can you see how, as cryptocurrency becomes more widely adopted and there is a larger influx of money into the system, this might cause a problem for a single Flagship DAC sailing alone against an Armada of ships that can at the drop of a hat retool themselves to gain the advantages of superior engineering of eachother. What's more...did any of NXT's competing chains sharedrop on original holders? or you? Nope...and why would they? It isn't like there is a community-driven effort to incentivize it. In fact, many in NXT's community have been so against competitors that they unintentionally fractured their community...sending old NXT investors to become whales in the new chains.
Counterparty is also doing this...with DogeParty and VertParty. And it wont end there....
This isn't a war between DACs...this is a War between protocols and protocol suites. So the question is: Do you want BitShares to be a Gold-Standard Crypto-protocol or just one powerful DAC? And if you are of the belief that BitShares becomming that single huge DAC will make others take notice and try to clone it, you are probably right. But then you have to ask yourself..."What reason would they have to want to sharedrop on us with their tokens?"
This is open source software so it isn't like anyone is forced to Sharedrop on us. The only reason for them to sharedrop on us is because they get something really appealing in return. If BitShares becomes a community of Maximalists who are only going to dump the sharedropped shares of competitors just to buy more bitshares, then they are never going to give you a stake in their project. Altchains are 1) places of potentially FREE innovation to BTS, 2) diversifying investments in DPOS-based (and maybe even other types) technology, 3) free marketing for the bitshares toolkit---which just so happens to push the BitShares brand. I am confused by this idea that we cannot support more than one chain as a community. In fact, that is what I thought drew most of the original founders in the first place.
This is actually precisely why I also support MUSIC/PLAY/PTS/AGS (and intend to run delegates on MUSIC/PLAY/PTS). Because if the BitShares holders decide that they are going to turn into the Maximalist Bitcoin Community, then I want to support the chain that will be open-minded about new technological innovations that may be valuable assets in my quest to help DPOS become a crypto Gold Standard in which we early investors hold a substantial stake.
Sure, I could run this delegate and end up not getting paid by the blockchain, but that would also mean I am even more limited in what I am able to do, the quality of the content will suffer and I will eventually have to recognize that my power over the future of BitShares is actually far greater and getting a job paying 40k-50k a year and simply buying BitShares and all the chains that sharedrop on me (if there are any). It also might mean that eventually I would have to rethink my strategy and consider opening up payments in some other way. It also means that rather than consider helping those holding BTS by working with anyone who sharedrops on its holders, that I would have to recognize that my idealistic attitude to help community before self is actually misplaced. This would open up the door to me either "getting a real job" or having to cover the competitors that pay me directly (and would actually probably end up being far better off for me in the end).
So with that said, at present I am not a big shareholder. I have 50,000BTS (more likely 46,000 now) locked away as bitUSD that I cannot liquidate due to a wallet malfunction (that I am still going to have to try to fix). I have 150,000BTS that go to parents. I have 50,000 that go to my little brother. And after that I probably have about 200,000-250,000BTS of my own (58,000 of which will be soon going to pay for a legal delegate that I HOPE gets voted in). So this sharedropping thing is not directly helping me that much actually. In fact, if you hold a substantial sum of shares, all you have to do is sit back and watch me help diversify your portfolio, build our community and focus on adding value to the ecosystem...while paying out of pocket for a server and soon a soundcloud to do so. This is on top of shouldering the opportunity cost of doing what I have been doing almost since the launch of BitShares at little benefit to myself.
In this ecosystem...those who hold the funds hold the power. This is the only good free-market solution I can think of. If the people who have and will continue to sacrifice for this project are not the perfect candidates to give large stake to, who is? And truth be told, I will be using the majority of the funds to pay other community members for helping edit the content we produce in both Dev and Delegate hangouts (with an obvious primary focus on BTS). So as I see it, why Wouldn't you vote for me? Is there someone else who would have done what I have and would continue to do? If so, they are few and far between---and I recommend you all take care of them because without them you lose network effect. And that will kill this chain, our prospects for the future, and your investment(s).