I mentioned in the dry run thread but this place is appropriate.
Since you are using the BTS toolkit to make your DPoS PTS, you should honour the social consensus and award at least 10% to AGS. If you don't you are starting off by breaking it itself and setting an example.
Couldn't agree with you more! This is a new coin, new people running it, new code (ulitmately it won't even be called Bitshares PTS) AND they used the BTS toolkit to make it, therefore they should honor the social consensus and give AGS 10%.
"new coin" - Nope, simply a badly needed upgrade to the protocol. The current PoW chain is practically dead and the upgrade will not modify the allocation in any form. If AGS holders decided to create a DPoS chain, would we then insist that they also sharedrop PTS? Of course not. Both PTS and AGS are benefactors of DPoS and neither is a "future DAC". The social consensus would be violated if we transferred ownership of AGS to PTS or vice versa. They represent different demographics and are equal and separate prongs of the social consensus.
"new people" - I3 transferred custodianship of PTS long, long ago and this is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Lastly, there is no name change yet. After the upgrade the community will decide the path to take on rebranding. It is necessary to prevent confusion between PTS and BTS and I believe would be performed even if we had a healthy PTS chain and no upgrade were necessary.
For what it is worth, I agree with alphabar's statement of facts. (It's not worth much because I am speaking as a free lance employee of BitShares the DAC not as an officer of I3 the corporation.)
PTS has been independent of I3 from the beginning. FreeTrade cloned it to BM's specifications and TestZ cared for it until AlphaBar teamed up with TestZ to upgrade it to a state of the art coin. I3 merely negotiated an industry consensus to use PTS as a demographic worth targeting with new DAC shares. We could have picked dogecoin.
Technically there are many ways to implement an upgrade and one of them is indistinguishable from snapshotting a new coin. The fact that the same technical approach may be used for both should not cause confusion that this is a new coin. It is nonsense to assert that somehow people who do not own the original suddenly have rights to shares in the upgrade. The purpose of PTS remains the same - to represent the heirs of the demographic who originally
mined and held the shares to achieve a traditionally acceptable initial distribution. To argue that a protocoin needs to honor some other protocoin is to miss the whole point of BitShares Sharedrop Theory. Protocoins represent demographics that developers might want to honor. It does them no good to become some diluted mix of demographic proto-genes.
Similary, Test Z is the constant thread of developer continuity between FreeTrade and AlphaBar. The
developers get to say whether they are implementing a new coin or upgrading an old one. Nobody else gets to force some other model on them.
The market then gets to say whether they accept what the developers are proposing.
The community can help this process by working to achieve a consensus. While it is possible for a vocal faction to insist on a competition to the death between POW-PTS and DPOS-PTS it should be obvious that that is in nobody's best interest. By working to reach a consensus where the exchanges are encouraged to do a smooth transition, the value of everyone's holdings becomes greater - much greater than it would have been if no one had stepped up to implement the upgrade or if confusion is allowed to reign as to who wears the crown of legitimacy.
"Le roi est mort, vive le roi!"; "El rey ha muerto, ¡viva el rey" I3 has built a decentralized industry, set it free, and is about to fade into the night like Satoshi. No one needs its permission to do anything. The argument whether this is an official I3 product or not is moot. Nothing is dependent on I3 any more.
BitShares is now a sovereign, untethered DAC. Just as I described a year ago in
http://letstalkbitcoin.com/bitcoin-and-the-three-laws-of-robotics/We have achieved our long-stated goal of complete decentralization of development and no one should insist on re-centralizing it. The industry is built and operating autonomously exactly as we have been saying it would be. Now it doesn't need scaffolding. We will continue to push forward as a team of equal individual contributors - leading by the power of our individual ideas and individually earned credibility -- if anyone wishes to follow.
If you are still interested in my opinion as an individual, you now have it.