I think the crucial thing that beats btc is not the 5%. It is "no mining" and being a powerful financial instrument which also makes it a true reserve currency...
We should not forget to explain what it does and what makes bts powerful! can easily make it look like a ponzi and people believe the great promises even less...

How does Keyhotee relate / compare to KryptoKit?

I sounds very similar. Does anyone know how they compare?

I guess not everyone is impressed by the ...  http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/01/28/bitcoin-conference-miami/

Ad- and disadvantages to the fixed 5% meme. Attracts attention but can come across as ponzi. It's like going all in at poker. If you are 100% sure you can guarentee the 5% you may surprise and convince like bitcoin did. If you have to step back from it you might loose credit... All you need is trust and people dont trust things that are too good to be true.... In my opinion it is definitely not a good idea if you are not 100% sure yet that it's gonna be 5%

Quote from: delulo on January 28, 2014, 07:31:13 pm

Apart form legal considerations...
What about the possibility of shorting shares of a company via Bitshares and then attacking that company in the real world making the price of the company's shares drop? Due to the anonymous nature of BTS the attacker with his short position could get away with it and take huge profits... Think of airlines. Of course it is bluntly criminal but would Bitshares allow to take profits form this criminal actions and therefore provide incentives to do so? What is stopping anyone from doing this if Bitshares works?

I actually do not believe this is criminal or immoral the act of going short in the first place signals to the market that new information suggests the price should be lower.  Imagine what would happen if investors had to discount news until it was verified because everyone knows this kind of attack is possible.   It would create a profit opportunity for everyone who isn't suckered into the attack (which I presume is a false attack full of lies).   In effect, the market can handle these kinds of manipulations when people are not lulled into complacency that some regulatory body can outlaw this kind of behavior...

In other words this kind of attack only works in markets where people are not fact checking and instead trusting regulators.   The result of the regulators is that these types of attacks still occur and are in fact far more successful.

Sorry, didn't really get what you said. Let's keep it practical and simple. Consider the following case:
I go short on Walmart shares with a lot of money. Then I inject poison into all kinds of foods sold in Walmart stores and I do this for a continued period of time. Then nobody will buy food at Walmart anymore -> Big losses -> Shares price drops -> BitWaltmartshares follow the Walmart shares price and I take my profits.
You could do this with all kinds of companies: Attacking Servers of companies, crashing planes... There is the risk of course of getting caught just like before but the posibilities to profit from it increase heavily if shorting shares/anything is completely anonymous.
When we are talking about leaving contracts aside and replacing them with the peer2peer exchange of value we are talking about leaving the need for trust aside and replacing it with self interest guided systems. I see great potential in that in a globalized world but the above would provide an incentive structure that goes against common interest.   

Apart form legal considerations...
What about the possibility of shorting shares of a company via Bitshares and then attacking that company in the real world making the price of the company's shares drop? Due to the anonymous nature of BTS the attacker with his short position could get away with it and take huge profits... Think of airlines. Of course it is bluntly criminal but would Bitshares allow to take profits form this criminal actions and therefore provide incentives to do so? What is stopping anyone from doing this if Bitshares works?

What about the possibility of shorting shares of a company via Bitshares and then attacking that company in the real world making the price of the company shares drop? Due to the anonymous nature of BTS the attacker with his short position could get away with it and take huge profits... Think of airlines....

Quote from: delulo on January 27, 2014, 08:40:46 pm

Quote

... and tbh I secretly think people in the future (not invictus) would honor PTS but not AGS.

Why?

Well...

People will be able to buy PTS later. Whereas AGS to my understanding can only be acquired during the AGS funding period. Furthermore the AGS funding is controlled by III.

If I were developing a DAC I could acquire PTS and only honor PTS in the launch of my DAC, viewing AGS as dilution of my new DAC holdings.

Is this actually the case? I don't know.

I would imagine that having both AGS & PTS holders would strengthen my DAC's ecosystem by increasing the number of shareholders. Simultaneously I imagine that most AGS holders also hold PTS, so perhaps my equity in the DAC would be diluted without really increasing the number of people who have a stake in the DAC.

I agree with your last paragraph.
But if you develope a DAC in 1 year PTS will be quite expensive and you can only get a fraction of all PTS for a reasonable price. That would not be very effective to increase your profits. Would be more effective to reserve 1% of all tokens of your DAC for yourself... and give the rest to PTS/AGS holders. If you leave out AGS you risk dispute.

Would it make sense for I3 to merge AGS and PTS after donation period is over?