I believe there is great power in community controlled "balance sheets."  We are designing DACs that have many parallels to companies but the only real asset and source of liquidity are the shares of the DAC itself.   For a large DAC this may be a plausible source of funds/liquidity for expenses such as development.  However, many smaller organizations could benefit from organizing on a blockchain with a community controlled fund containing a liquid asset (BTSX/BitUSD?) that they can use to advance the goals of the organization. These organizations are more analogous to standard companies organized financially on a blockchain, not necessarily a DAC, but subgroups on a SuperDAC that allows their formation.

Examples:
Imagine instead of donating to a charity, you opened your bitshares wallet and bought shares of the charity and that was the way to donate.  The charity issues new shares and the money you pay for the shares goes into a fund controlled by all shareholders.  Now you didn't just give your money and trust that it is spent well, but you rightly become part of the charity and get a say in how the money is spent.  You can give the shares as a gift if you like or if you lose faith in the direction of the community you can sell your shares.  The mission of the charity can change with the desires of the current stakeholders. For a pure charity you would expect it to continuously issue new shares to raise money that it spends on charitable projects decided by the vote of shareholders.

If you wanted to raise money for your crypto project.  Instead of doing a standard "IPO" where people need to send you money and trust that you are not a scammer, you can form a group that issues new shares for sale and the money goes into the community balance sheet.  The new shareholders of your crypto project can then decide to pay you a salary out of the community fund to pay for your development work over time.  If you abandon the project or don't update your shareholders to show progress, they can pull the plug on you and dissolve the remaining funds to the shareholders, or hire a new paid developer to continue the work.  The shareholders are partners with the dev working on a common goal and share power.

Think of the balance sheet as a large multisig address where each share is a signature and it requires 51% of signatures to send.  These are "majority rules" organizations subject to a 51% attack like anything else.  So you should only buy shares of groups where you either trust the majority owners or feel that the shares are sufficiently distributed to prevent collusion.  A majority that abuses power will generally be abandoned and find their shares worthless.  Small startups short on trust could potentially have the balance subject to spending limits or trusted 3rd party arbitration.

I want to propose a way for a DAC to have ongoing funds to do development and promotion in a democratic way, without designating a specific portion in the beginning or begging the community for donations.

Just like DACs elect delegates to write blocks… DACs could also elect employees (such as paid developers).

How it works:
Right now every spent output is assigned to a delegate (for/against).
You could make it so every spent output assigns a desired inflation rate… e.g. 2% and designates (for or against) a key for a potential employee.

The median of all specified inflation rates is taken e.g. 2% and then the elected employee/employees are granted the power to issue new shares at a maximum rate of 2% per year (proportional also to the amount of stake supporting them).

If you don't think the community needs paid employees, you just set your vote to 0% inflation.  If more than 50% of the stake doesn't want employees with power to issue shares than there will be no employees (median inflation would be 0%). If someone says they want 100% inflation it doesn't matter because it takes the median.

Employees will be judged on how much money they use and how effectively they use it.  They will all need to maintain a public ledger of where the money goes if they want any credibility and they can be fired in a heartbeat.  They can only issue new shares slowly over time so they have no way to make a big money grab.

EDIT 6/18:  Voting method
The voting method for employees I propose to be "approval voting."  There are no down-votes and no restriction on how many different employees you can vote for using your stake.  Not voting for an employee indicates you do not support that employee.  Along with your vote for an employee you indicate an appropriate annual salary in bips (gets paid out daily).  Only an employee with over 50% support from the DAC will end up being paid.  Their salary is the median voted by stake (people who did not vote for the employee are included in the median as voting for a "0" salary).

Any "inactive stake" (no transactions for over 1 year and paid inactivity penalty) should be removed from the voting algorithm.

Just wanted to point out this job fair.  It's May 3rd in silicon valley for people looking for jobs in the bitcoin industry.

http://bitcoinjobfair.com/
http://www.coindesk.com/silicon-valley-job-fair-match-bitcoin-professionals/

It seems to me like getting the message of BitShares out to potential developers like people looking for a job in the industry could be even more important than getting the message to typical investors.

Maybe an idea to have a presence at this job fair?  Even if you don't find someone to hire, it might not hurt.  just a thought.