As for being against Invictus doing DAC Air Drops on other cryptos (like, say, DomainShares Air Dropping to Namecoin), I cannot see why investors would not want this. Most investors are intelligent enough to at least somewhat diversify...and the bitshares community will gain a great deal of press for initiatives like these. I am just trying to see the downside(s). All ears on that
I think the downside is that to date, any attempts at significant airdrops, even to targeted communities and that don't have any personal financial investment in the new coin have resulted in 99%+ losses from shareholders from the highs, which is pretty epic.
These figures are a few months old but -
SiliconValleyCoin achieved a high of $20 million and is now $1650 (99.9%+ Shareholder loss)
AuroraCoin achieved a high of $800 million and is now $1 million... (99%+ Shareholder loss)
SpainCoin achieved a high of $80 million and is now $20 000... (99.9% Shareholder loss)
MazaCoin achieved a high of $6 million and is now $200 000... (96% Shareholder loss)
However DomainShares to Namecoin or DogeLotto to Dogecoin should have more success. I still think the short term effect will be price negative but perhaps the overall marketing value will offset it. I think it's a good idea to test the best Airdrop strategy with a non-core DAC and gauge the results from that.
Exactly ! With numbers to back it up. I came to this thread to read the new posts and add my additional 2 cents, but have a similar opinion.
I think most airdrops will end up with people who just dump their shares. The airdrop needs an additional component that at least differentiates the people who care vs the people who will auto-dump. If 80% of the people dump their shares, has the DAC gained value ? (rhetorical question) At first I was more for the idea but as time has went on I've changed my opinion. I like the idea of a random chance, but not one tied into purchases. If there would be a way for a person to have to check to see fi they have received shares and not have them by default. (That means they're at least slightly more motivated given that they're doing something with a possible outcome of 0.. vs guaranteed money given a typical airdrop)
So Luckybit's suggestion is good in that it differentiates people who care, but it also is just another way of purchasing shares with a random component. If you could find a way to actually discern motivated investors vs people who will just immediately dump then we'd have a solution.
After reading the faucet idea I'm far more interested in that. We really want people who are motivated to use the DAC. DNS/Namecoin is an obvious fit, but what outside of that fits ? Will Namecoin people dump their shares because they want to protect Namecoin? Lots of unknowns on the behavior end of things.
Perhaps a faucet that is tied into the addresses of other coins. Then from there add a few other parameters to keep people from spreading their money out into different addresses. Then you have a hybrid faucet and airdrop !
They download the DAC, get an address for receiving their shares. Then if there was a standard way for us to verify they were in control of certain addresses of the airdropped coin, they put that in there. The address would likely need a certain sized balance at a certain date, or the person could just move the money and use the faucet again. There are lots of combinations of verification parameters but I suspect this idea might be the best way to "airdrop".
But then I ask myself why bother even having the airdrop to a certain coin? A public faucet would be better. Perhaps the airdrop-faucet could reward slightly higher amounts ? Or at least make a certain coin feel more involved if there was a faucet exclusive to certain coins ?
Anyway.. just my rambling 2 cents.