I said this in the prior thread but I will paste it here for the benefit of English speakers. For the rest, I would appreciate if someone can translate:
PTS was intended to be a distribution mechanism for future DACs. Making it a user-issued asset in the very first DAC violates the intent of PTS. There are very ambitious features of the BTSX DAC that could fail spectacularly, independent of DPOS (pegged assets, for example). PTS should not be subject to the volatility and risk introduced by these features or future features that may be implemented by BTSX. PTS should be independent, both in price, volatility, and features from the DACs that are born from it. It should be the Switzerland of DACs, agnostic and separate from even the market perceptions of a DAC and its features. This way it ends up representing a more distributed and non-biased segment of investors who are not for or against any particular feature of any particular DAC, but who believe in the underlying protocol as a foundation (DPOS). Even the marketing and perceptions of a particular DAC (today or in the future) has the potential to taint PTS and dissuade future DACs from using PTS.