They're being traded as a user asset on BTS. You can import your btc wallet to trade them.
We renamed the dac to Muse but at the momeny I think "notes" is sticking around

Title III only limits crowdfunding to a million dollars per year from non-accredited investors. So probably not.

Not sure if snark... $1m is a lot of runway especially now that dan has learned how not to waste money. With the investment cap you could auction shares off, then use that as the valuation for VC money.

MUSE is technically an acronym which could help too. Two notes to anyone who guesses it =P

This was the first step in a line of reasoning that caused Rune to conclude that BTS and maker are both central banks and the collateral is incidental. It's just that leveraged trading is one of the only cases where we can get excess collateral for a loan put down voluntarily. At a large enough scale (like took-over-the-world scale), any particular bitasset must detach and the exchange CFD mechanism has to be replaced with a mechanism that lets price float but controls interest based on consumer price feeds.  (edit: actually mb you can use the exchange CFD against the price index itself if the stuff in the index is super liquid)

Since you cannot print shares (past 3.7b) then you can reduce future flood risk if you let the fund be burned. How are people seriously trying to argue its the same thing?

Of course since "don't break share cap" is apparently not enforceable when shareholders can coordinate vote to hard fork then you should assume future owners will try to print shares and so we should just accept it.

I know an ether dev who says it is far to expensive in terms of gas to do anything of the scale of bts

This, and this was always the point from the start. Ethereum will have dynamic interdependent contract systems which can do really complex things but which cost tangible money per operation. Asset transfer and market ops at scale will cost too much. Their POS plans are somewhat scalable but their max trx/sec is limited by CPU speed for crypto ops (not just signatures, sha3 used everywhere in compiled solidity)

OP is a bad example because the server could spoof a name->address map just as easily. The real problem has to do with chain reorganization and replay attacks. Seems the solution is that DPOS achieves consensus too quickly for that or something