These along with the other icons on the new(est) site look fantastic! 

Good point.  I was kind of half joking, but wanted to make a point about who we are targeting - we want people with big numbers on their BANK statements, not their doge wallets. Doge crowd is not the target market for what Bitshares X is offering, bitcoin maybe, wall street definitely.

What separates bitshares DACs from other alt coins is that bitshares DACs are designed to be profitable.  If using a metronode system means that transaction speed goes from 5 minutes to under 30 seconds, it becomes more attractive to traders.  Faster transactions mean more transactions, and more transactions mean more dividends from fees.

Let us not forget that the ASICs are dominating the market 

So you want to take 10% of the entire AGS funding and you want to give it to 8 of the largest players?  But as a DAC builder you don't want to give 10% of your own venture back to the community of AGS investors?  What if the market doesn't move in the way you think it should move - years in advance? Is your fee structure correct?  Would you stick to the terms outlined here no matter what or would you be willing to change it?

Why should AGS holders only be awarded for DACs funded by AGS? What if AGS-DAC solves common functions that every DAC could then duplicate?  Is it now free for you to use at your own will? Or do you start walling off functionality and do it your own way? Do we want to start splitting people into camps based on which type of shares they want to honor? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to encourage everyone to work together as much as possible?

Is putting the community in a perpetual competition against each other really a good idea? I think this could discourage people from wanting to help each other out - especially the largest DAC developers in the market. We are an open source community. We can all build on top of what we do as a community.  Right now we have more DACs than developers.  We need to focus on the core product before trying to squeeze out every last share of an immature platform. 

I really think after reading these forums these last few days, we need to unify PTS and AGS, as described by bytemaster in another post.  Not for a while, not until they both run their course.  Because honestly, in a couple of years, why would anyone new to the community give a shit about trying to decide whether to honor the religion of the shareholders who paid money vs. the religion of the shareholderss that plugged a bunch of computers into a wall. Then they would have to go through the forums and read about an ongoing civil war and get confused as hell trying to figure out who to support.  This would make things much simpler, seeing as people are already confused now. AGS would become liquid, and PTS would upgrade to a TaPOS system. And do you know what would be the best part about this? You could drop the clunky Bitshares AGS and Bitshares PTS monikers, and that one unified unit could then simply be known as a BitShare.  Anyone could buy into the community and be on the same level of expectation as everyone else in the community.

So what do I honestly think about this competition? I like it, but only if we do it one year at a time.  After the first one ends, the community should vote whether or not to have one for the next year.  No need to commit ourselves so far out in advance.

Dan N. are these 32-bit versions and should we be using the 32-bit version of everything?

There's links here to pre-built versions of static QT for windows (and prebuilt berkeleyDB as well):
https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/keyhotee/wiki/Building-Keyhotee
Downloading and using those is your easiest route, I think. We don't normally build static QT on each of our Windows machines, because it is quite a pain.

I did not realize this wiki was there.  Thanks for posting this, I will give it a shot tonight.

-Scott