I think the concept of Protoshares makes sense in that it makse sense for developers to honor Protoshares in their DAC and its a revolutionary and maybe THE way for funding DACs. But there is one case I can think of that that doesnt stimulate honoring of PTS: When a 3rd Party DAC is a direct competitor to any DAC released by I3 (in the future). This is not a definite reason to igrnore Protoshares but it might play a role because credit and attention is given to a direct competitor this way....
Just the opposite...
If I were a determined competitor of Invictus, I sure wouldn't let the fact that they fielded a particular DAC first deter me from courting all the PTS and AGS holders out there for my competing DAC. I'd want all the advantages Invictus has, so I'd try to outdo them in making an even better deal for the PTS/AGS stakeholders of the community.
If Invictus offered 10%, I'd offer 20%... no?
This is an interesting playing field.
It's a balance between the obvious benefits (easy way to a distributed shareholder base -> advocates / marketers of DAC) against not receiving the part of the money that PTS holders dont have to pay in the initial funding / presale if its a POS Coin. Maybe nothing that weighs out the benefits.. What other benefits does the dac developer have then the one named above?
Why do you think nxt or mastercoin which have some similar features (in terms of claimed functions) like Bitshares (although I think Bitshares is superior from what can be known by now) didn't honor protoshares?
ProtoShares are only 2 months old.
AngelShares are only 2 weeks old.
As new developers weigh this as a potential new launch option, they have to consider what they would do
instead that would be more advantageous:
AGS was originally viewed as Invictus-specific. We are only the caretakers, the management agents by which members of the community can crowd-fund common infrastructure and the ecosystem on which other DACs can quickly build. 100% of the funds raised are recycled back into the community to fund development and promotion by the community. Once the toolkit, infrastructure and ecosystem are built it belongs to the stakeholder community, not Invictus.
So now, as a DAC developer do you want to build on top of that ecosystem without honoring those that sacrificed to build it? How do you think those PTS and AGS holders collectively would view a new DAC that dissed their contributions? Who else will understand and appreciate your new DAC if you alienate them?
Would you rather build your own ecosystem and come up with the money to do that all over again independently? Why? To save 20% that would otherwise be given away in mining lotteries in an attempt to attract attention from somehow knowledgable non-stakeholders?
These are question every developer must ask. What do you think the wisest will choose?
And what about the opportunity costs of re-inventing the wheel?
I think developers will use this launch pad because its the most cost effective way to accelerate their path to fame and glory.
And when it's not, they won't.