But I do think we should reward genuine pioneers, risk takers, and people who show real interest in PoS. People who just want to mine but who don't care about whether or not it's centralizing, or whether or not it's promoting technological progress, why reward that?
+NXT -- innovative / new blockchain tech / decentralized asset exchange
+Monero -- innovative / new bc / new signature scheme
+Peercoin -- innovative / first pos altough still minable 
+Blackcoin -- first(?) PoS-only (not so much innovation)
Maybe we should build a compilation of pro/cons for each coin
Just approach each community with the same 50/50 split deal. The communities which accept our conditions of a 50/50 equity split would be given priority. If they don't accept then we'd do it anyway and let them respond.
Immediately when Bitshares is released we should systematically approach or re-approach certain communities with the offer. In the background do it anyway and then try our best to get support of the community because marketing requires it. I'm not with the idea of rewarding previous winners unless those winners continue to have a lot of shares in innovative technological blockchains. Just as science doesn't doesn't give prizes over and over again to the same idea neither should we.
I may try to give more detailed comments in a few days, but, in brief, we need to consider the costs to such a strategy and also better articulate exactly what would be the benefits of such a move.
Offering such deals to different communities, in my opinion, would be a big mistake. The problem is that if deals are not offered to every community, or even to every POS-related community, that would create ill will and jealousy. This is just human nature: people want to belong and be accepted. The haves will be looked upon with resentment by the have-nots. Also, this move may cheapen the bitshares image forever. It wouldn't build true loyalty of the beneficiaries of the deal, who might just dump the shares and continue with what they had before. Then you have a much bigger supply of DPOS trading units floating around, and a stagnant share price. Finally, Bitshares would be seen as trying too hard to colonize other cryptocurrencies. People might wonder, why does bitshares have to try so hard to win approval? Is there something wrong with it?
If you don't believe this, just imagine what you'd think if you heard that NXT was trying to openly or secretly broker 50/50 deals to convert Peercoin, Blackcoin, Monero, to their technology, but NOT bitshares. And what if you heard that they converted these coins anyways despite the objections of the BlackCoin community. How would that affect your perception of nxt?
I think if marketing and brand awareness are the goal, then the best strategies would include a combination of the following: (1) Building a great product with continual high-quality development and support, leading to a consistently-rising share price; (2) More presence on Bitcointalk forum, with some knowledgeable posters to evangelize and answer questions (this is a gaping hole at the moment--the awareness of Bitshares on the bitcoin forum is very weak). (3) Targeted drops by the individual DACs, pre-loaded wallets, viral distribution strategies, etc. But these must be targeted drops and not 50/50 deals that try to "colonize" existing coins to the DPOS protocol; (4) Buzz in the media, nice websites, great conferences, etc. But (1) is the key, as it makes all the others more effective. If Bitshares can get anywhere close to the investor interest that Bitcoin has, it will have succeeded.
Show Posts
