Thank you very much, great initiative IMO!

1) Implementing a virtual machine (like Ethereum’s’ Virtual Machine) into Graphene.

I'm very sceptic about porting a VM to BTS. I believe that in the end it means that we have to sacrifice our speed, because the problem here is that VMs simply don't scale. We're still one of the fastest blockchains out there - sacrificing that for something that in the end would be no better than ETH would be a very bad move IMO.

2) Implementation of the Atomic Swap mechanism.

Not sure if I understand what you mean - are we talking about Atomic Cross--Chain Trading (ACCT)?

In that case I think that this would be a great feature to have. It could provide an actual trustless gateway (as opposed to a delegate-controlled sidechain/gateway) between BTC and bitBTC, and most altcoins out there. The speed of such trades is mostly determined by the speed of the other chain (read: slow), which is why I think that people wouldn't use it for everyday trading but more to move funds into and out of our chain. For everyday trading they would use out built-in high-speed DEX.

It could also be implemented with relatively little effort (read: low cost) I think.

3) Creation of Fee Backed Asset.
The idea of creating the FBA was proposed back in 2015, but was never implemented.

AFAIK FBA's have been implemented. The only current use-case is STEALTH, i. e. part of the fees for stealth transfers are used to buy back the STEALTH asset.

If you mean something else, please expand.

You need to import the .bin file on the other computer.

Asking is allowed of course. But for marketing I'm definitely the wrong guy to ask. :-)

xeroc reported that the bsip-18 worker has collected sufficient funds.

Thanks for the clarifications, @xeroc (and for coming up with the proposal in the first place)!

I definitely see the need for the role, and I'm going to support the proposal.

In a decentralized ecosystem, we are not looking for leaders or owners, but we are looking for leadership.

The strength of BitShares is that of technical superiority, and distributed governance, but by nature of its decentralized and autonomous community organization all the rest is not continuously attended unlike in most other platforms. In some areas now with very undesirable effects. There is no one following a bigger picture, not business development, public relations, or even marketing. This needs to change.

With this I fully agree. I have said similar things before.

to engage in external communication as the only spokesperson with the authorities, market parties and legal council. To coordinate and distribute work and to act as representative. If need be the foundation may sign on behalf of the community when it is a document that protects its interests in registration or public tradability.

This is problematic, to say the least.

I don't think "the community" exists as an entity in some legal sense. If the proposal is accepted, this provides a certain justification for the BBF to act as a spokesperson. If this justification is sufficient or acceptable probably lies with said "authorities, market parties and legal councils". But I think it is doubtful that it would hold when challenged.

On the other side, it is (to me) extremely unclear what it means in practice that the foundation "may sign on behalf of the community". First of all, disagreement about our interests is the rule in this community, not the exception. From this it follows immediately that it is undecidable if signing a document is in our interests, which means that any such signature is most likely not valid.
Second, any agreement that the BBF signs on behalf of the community is unenforcable (against us). For example, if the SEC demands that the stealth feature is removed, and the BBF promises to do so, the community might simply refuse to do that. Neither the SEC nor the BBF can enforce the removal of stealth.

Please clarify how you are planning to handle all of this.

We must give 3rd parties (exchanges and other businesses) sufficient time to get notified and upgrade.

Interesting point by you on creating SmartCoins. Are they identical to "real" Committee-issued Smartcoins, in this case?

Not necessarily, but they can be made identical, i. e. with identical flags + permissions etc.. You can also create them and assign ownership to the committee.