I don't quite get this discussion. The AGS funding was all sent in voluntarily based on trust that the BitShares team would use it efficiently to build the DAC ecosystem.
This is exactly how I feel about how the argument in this post devolved.
I think this is also relevant, from the Angelshares announcement post...
"What happens to all the donations?"
100% of the proceeds go to growing the crypto-equity industry. Zero percent will be retained as profits Invictus.
Funds will be used to encourage new developers with salaries, grants, contracts, and bounties to build everything from small components to entire new DACs. They will be used provide a free high-quality Developer's Toolkit giving DAC developers a huge head start. They will be used for advertisements, conferences, promotions and give-aways to stimulate interest in the new industry and to provide opportunities for everyone to contribute. They will be used for legal advocacy for the ecosystem in many jurisdictions. Anything that we believe will grow the value of BitShares PTS and all DACs that honor the contributions of PTS and AGS holders.
It is beyond our control to prevent a copycat from forking our open source code in a way that fails to honor our promises. It is up to the market to reject this, or not. If you do not like our proposed allocation, do not trust the market to reject copycats, or do not trust us to deliver then please take your money, fund competition, and build your own DACs that fit your preferred allocation strategy.
Particularly...
(Angelshares will be used for) anything that we believe will grow the value of BitShares PTS and all DACs that honor the contributions of PTS and AGS holders.
and
If you do not like our proposed allocation, do not trust the market to reject copycats, or do not trust us to deliver then please take your money, fund competition, and build your own DACs that fit your preferred allocation strategy.
I think Adam just feels that trust was broken based on his many interactions and conversations with the Invictus staff. He trusted Invictus to deliver a certain product within a certain timeframe and that hasn't materialized. He's angry about that and it's obvious. The personal attacks on Adam are completely unjustified because no one besides Adam and the staff at Invictus with whom he communicated know what was said in those conversations (unless they all occured on these forums of course). Everyone really just needs to cool down because personal attacks get us nowhere.
When I first saw the Angelshares announcement, I'll admit I was annoyed because I felt it was diluting the value of the Protoshares I was holding. But once I read through the announcement and stewed on it for a bit, I began to understand why it was necessary and that, in fact, it was a good thing.
Based on the content of the announcement, I viewed it much like a Kickstarter where the reward you get for pledging your bitcoin or protoshares was a future stake, proportional to your pledge, in all the DACs created by Invictus or the community of developers they hoped to foster.
I still trust Invictus to deliver, much like I would trust a Kickstarter with a good product that misses their initial deadlines or has delays because they want to improve the product before it ships (if you've ever contributed to a Kickstarter, you know more often then not there are significant delays). Let's remember that holders of Angelshares do not hold equity in Invictus itself, and while their suggestions may be valid, it is ultimately Invictus's decision to steer the company in the direction they see fit to reach their vision.
Don't forget, by the nature of their position, the staff at Invictus has a pretty big stake in making it sure it's successful.