We've already discussed that idea.
Our goal is to position PTS as a no-dilution, no-inflation investment vehicle, so we have decided against it.

Tony had an interesting idea here -
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11576.0

I think we've got about 1,760,000 PTS minted now.

If we were to have 20,000 transaction processing subsidy (1%) in the first year, reducing by 50% each year . . . we'd have a maximum possible cap of 1,800,000 mil - you could still market it as no-dilution, no-inflation, on the basis that there is a total supply of 1.8 mil.

Really looking for a compromise with you guys on transaction processing subsidy - a lot of smart people have said it's not a good idea to get rid of it with no replacement. You'd also start to gain a reputation for pragmatic compromise, rather than ideological dogmatism.

we will need to select transaction and user registration fees carefully in order to help offset, however slightly, the cost of running delegates.

High transaction and registration fees are definitely one sustainable model - however they might inhibit adoption and transaction volume.

I wonder if there isn't a way to have both a hardcap and a transaction processing subsidy?

I've updated the original BitcoinTalk thread with the news -

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=325261.0

Sparkle is the first next-generation block chain built around proof-of-work but with all of the latest innovations provided by BitShares, including BitAssets and paid workers.

Sparkle uses the SHA512 hashing algorithm for proof of work and expects to change the proof of work algorithm based upon delegate consensus.     

Interesting - I'm more leaning toward DPOS now, but this could be a useful backup in case DPOS fails in some catastrophic way.

2 things -

1. I wonder if you'd consider a more CPU friendly initial proof-of-waste
2. I wonder if you'd consider a wider sharedrop - across BTC, LTC, DOGE, PPC addresses maybe

I think targeting mainstream users in the broadest sense is too premature, especially for downloading the full node, so I guess that's a point where we disagree on the general marketing direction, and thus my opinion may be of limited use. But especially if mainstream is the target, I think it would be so much better if there were just two simple sentences explaining 1) what the product is 2) how the reader can use the product. Right now the website expects readers to scroll down through a lot of large pictures, then asks people to get started by downloading a program, but it doesn't seem like it properly explains what downloading that program accomplishes. We should at least also explain that they need to go to an exchange and buy BTS or bitUSD to begin earning interest.

However, if I had to design the marketing strategy I think I would use bitshares.org as the place for technical users and bitcoin veterans to get a quick rundown of the specs and as a place to download the client and find exchanges in their country.

Mainstream targeting could be done directly by a bitAsset on-ramp such as getbitusd.com that focused on selling bitassets and letting users download a lightweight client or sign up for a hosted wallet, all in one simple funnel done on a single website.

Yes, yes, yes to everything here.

The design is very nice, but I don't know who it is for.

Who is the website targeted at?

What are we hoping the target market is going to do after visiting the website?

ok  , dig dirt is a strong word ....It'ts better called "tough audit".

Tough audits are fine. What I'm worried about is seeing a lot of baseless or irrelevant accusations made that waste a lot of time for people. aka politics.

Quote

I have also kicked around the idea of offering a limited number of sponsored slots in this slate.

This is completely contrary to the idea that slate recommendations should comprise an unbiased assessment and set of recommendations by the reviewer. Open to all kinds of abuse in my opinion.

Provide a slate by all means, and vote for your own paid delegate on that slate as compensation for the effort of maintaining a slate.

Run another paid delegate to compensate you for dev hangouts, and the community can decide to finance/reward that effort too. Add that delegate to your slate too - no problem as long as it is transparent.

But don't ask for a portion of someone else's delegate pay when you're voting for them on a slate. That looks too much like a kickback, and even if it doesn't start out that way, that's what it'll turn into. I won't vote for any whose behaviour could be confused with taking or encouraging kickbacks, and I won't add them to my slate.