On the remaining supply question, there are basically 3 positions:

1) Cut the supply at current values.
2) Use remaining supply to pay delegates // developers // for promotion.
3) Use remaining supply to keep virtual mining subsidized.

The most difficult option, but most according to original contract is 3.
The easiest and simplest option is 1, simply stopping the inflation.
The best long term for the PTS DPOS chain itself is probably 2.

PS I just came up with the subsidized mining pool idea and was a little overexcited (read: biased) by it.
Showing the miners finally who knows economy, get promotion via that camp, etc. 

#1 is the best choice - every person gets the same proportion of shares they currently have. No inflation and no giveaways.

#2 would result in an instantaneous inflation (even worse than mining) devaluing all of our shares. This is an insane amount of coins to just create out of thin air and give away. Funds for marketing and promotion has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Typical marketing and promotion funds are a tiny fraction of the amount we're talking about, an in my opinion should be voluntary. I am of the opinion that PTS needs just the basics - good informational resources (ie, a website/client) and a secure and efficient protocol (DPOS). It is up to the DACs to promote and market their coins since they are designed to be for-profit businesses. PTS was created for a different objective.

#3 defies logic for me. We would be paying for miners to secure the networks of other coins and receiving nothing in return.

Mining should continue seamlessly via a subsidized multipool (remaining PTS is given to miners this way).

I'm not seeing the point of keeping a multipool to donate to miners who are no longer performing a service for the network. As shareholders, we are entitled to select the most cost-effective solution for securing our shares. PTS was created with the intent of solving the problem of proof of work, which Dan explicitly described as "overpaying for security". Now that the solution we funded has arrived, are we expected to continue overpaying? And in this case it is worse because we would literally be giving away our money to miners who are busy providing security for competing currencies. Seems totally irrational to me.

https://github.com/BitShares/BitShares-PTS/releases/tag/v1.0.0

The original protoshares website is down: http://invictus.io/bitshares-pts.php
See the broken link in the sidebar of the subreddit here: http://www.reddit.com/r/protoshare/.
This link (also found in various places) is broken: http://invictus-innovations.com/downloads/

The link you provided (the github repo) is not found anywhere on the Bitshares website - not even on the page that describes Protoshares.

Edit: added broken link

Friends, the PTS price has been dropping rapidly for the last few weeks. Dan has indicated that the maintenance and decisions related to PTS are no longer the responsibility of Invictus. The user "testz" has been tasked with maintaining PTS in accordance with the community's consensus. I created this poll with 3 options, but as we all know there are really only two paths forward. The current PTS chain is insecure and inefficient due to a low hashrate, high inflation, and other problems (difficulty adjustment, etc).

We need to decide how and when to proceed with an upgrade. Please vote and comment to indicate your preference as well as your preferred timing of the upgrade. I personally believe that PTS should be upgraded IMMEDIATELY as a standalone DPOS chain and should NOT be a user-issued asset in BTSX and here is why:

BTSX is essentially the first DAC. There are very ambitious features of the BTSX DAC that could fail spectacularly, independent of DPOS (pegged assets, for example). PTS should not be subject to the volatility and risk introduced by these features or future features that may be implemented by BTSX. PTS should be independent, both in price, volatility, and features from the DACs that are born from it. It should be the Switzerland of DACs, agnostic and separate from even the market perceptions of a DAC and its features. This way it ends up representing a more distributed and non-biased segment of investors who are not for or against any particular feature of any particular DAC, but who believe in the underlying protocol as a foundation (DPOS).

With respect to the timing of the upgrade, I believe it should be done urgently and immediately to prevent a further decline in the price and investor confidence in PTS. The upgrade should be seamless and relatively frictionless now that the large exchanges have implemented BTSX (implementation of any DPOS wallet is essentially the same). An advanced announcement of the exact block of the snapshot for the upgrade should be sufficient. If it is agreed, we will need people to reach out to cryptsy, bter and other exchanges to coordinate the timing.

With Invictus shifting their focus away from PTS, it is up to the community to make this happen and to stop the bleeding in PTS. Whatever your opinion, please make it known or nothing will change.

Pts is maintained by testz.   

What is "testz" (an organization?), who are the members of testz, how do we contact those people, and where can we get additional information on the organization and people?

With respect to the question of listing PTS within BTSX vs an independent blockchain, I am wondering whether it makes sense for PTS to be encompassed by what is essentially the first DAC. In other words, there are very ambitious features of the BTSX DAC that could fail spectacularly, independent of DPOS (pegged assets, for example). I am leaning towards PTS not being subject to the volatility introduced by these features. In fact, I would argue that the original "eggs in one basket" concern about the security of DPOS actually applies more clearly to BTSX than DPOS. PTS should be independent, both in price, volatility, and features from the DACs that are born from it. This way it ends up representing a more distributed and non-biased segment of investors who are not for or against any particular feature of any particular DAC, but who believe in the underlying protocol as a foundation (DPOS).

Lol @ the continued use of  "backdoor decision making" as if someone is doing anything underhanded. 
[...]
Part of the problem is that Stan went and started making their thoughts public, then they went back, changed them and currently not following through.

That is the exact definition of backdoor decision making, not sure what you are laughing about. There was a long and detailed public discussion leading to consensus. Then "some people" decided to reverse course, in private, and with no input or explanation to the community.

There are a million other things to do

So you're saying you don't have the resources to do this? This is the exact opposite sentiment to what I was reading in the multiple discussion threads started by I3 above.

we need a POW difficulty update for PTS in either case

The POW difficulty update is not the only issue. What about the low hash rate and the fact that many of the miners are only mining for altruistic reasons. The current situation is insecure and inefficient, and the matter was discussed in painstaking detail with the community and resolved. The idea that I3 would make a backdoor decision after all this is just astonishing to me.

we don't want to put all our eggs into one basket while DPOS so young.

I'm sorry but this statement is utterly illogical. BTSX currently has 3 times the market cap of Bitshares PTS. Are you claiming that it is I3's strategy to "diversify" across multiple consensus algorithms just in case DPOS fails? Why not tell our DAC developers to do the same - one can create X11, Scrypt, SHA256, Nxt, etc. The fact is that everyone in this ecosystem has knowingly put their eggs into "this one basket" (DPOS). The entire point of buying PTS or AGS is to be solely in this one basket of DPOS.

What makes you so concerned about it?

*backroom decision making OPPOSITE to the community consensus
*scatterbrained and illogical answers when consulted
*The fact that some PTS whales dumped and crashed the price almost immediately after this backroom decision was made.

Is that enough for you?