Will there be market pegged assets in IDentabit?

What will serve as the medium of exchange? Market pegged assets or the native token (identabits) or some User issued asset / issuer backed asset?

Identabit will be a base on which various "applications" will be built,  of which Remittances (Remitabit) is one that has already been discussed.   So Initially,  the native token will be the medium of exchange,  but over time there are plans for market pegged assets and user issued/backed assets (for Remitabit, for example).

The concept of BitShares to provide a platform on which to build DACs is amazingly appealing.   I can see the benefits of the proposal to greatly simplify  the world of AGS & PTS,  but I would like to raise the issue of  how this will impact future 3rd Party DACs.

We can leave the discussion as to whether any new DAC should consolidate to the "super" BitShares DAC.   For discussion purposes, let's suppose we see a very different market to address with sufficiently different needs.  What will the new post-merger world look like for 3rd Party DACs.

I have some questions and comments...

• How will social consensus work in the future (if AGS PTS holders are merged into BTS). I have up to this point thought of the social consensus is sacrosanct - in future, how can we determine the holders of AGS/PTS or will the social consensus need to evolve to cover the whole of BTS holders as a result of the proposed merger?  How will any new social consensus achieve consensus?
  
• It seems that the VOTE DAC has new features that has everyone very excited.   The question here is  - those features not to be included in the BitShares toolkit for Intellectual Property or other reasons?   Or will they be maintained in the BitShares DAC code (which itself is derived from the BitShares Toolkit)?  Would a BitShares code base include significant additions over and above the BitShares Toolkit base.
  
• Bytemaster has said that BitShares Toolkit will continue to be the developed and maintained.   I have heard it mentioned that one of the reasons for the proposed merger is to allow BitSharesX to utilize the marvelous work done for the other DACS?  Why cannot that be done at present,  notwithstanding issues of merging, testing & therefore,  managing the fork.   Or is there an issue with code management that is "forcing" the different DACs together?   Or is it simply to enjoy the network effect of combining the functions?
  
• There seems to me to be a down side to future user issued assets on BTS block-chain.  In a merged block-chain,  delegates will need to agree to provide a feed for assets,  including new user issued assets if the market peg is to be initially maintained.  This would seem to make the introduction of user issued assets very difficult,  as it would require the co-ordination & contact with 101 delegates to "sell"" them on the new idea.  While a market view would say that this is simply the way that it should be,   in practice it would seem difficult to get this organised - hence driving people with new business ideas back to creating a new DAC.   
  
• What role will of BitUSD (& similar assets) play in the future.  I have in this forum  of the potential for 3rd Party DACs to utilize (piggy-back) onto BitUSD etc    rather than trying to maintain their own market &/or peg.   However I guess that is easily done by an appropriately developed interface rather than any explicit additional support (current APIs).
  

By the way, I have posted this in the General Discussion area as it seems to go to the core of one aspect of the merger proposals.