Now that the gray area regarding what the social consensus has become, and how PTS relates to that has been clarified I would like to point this thread back to the original topic again.
Do you guys think future developers are likely to honor PTS? Why or why not?
If future developers wish to tap into investors, whose primary interest is investing in new and innovative Bitshares DACs, then they should honour PTS.
To my mind, there is a clear demarcation between BTS (the Invictus 'SuperDAC') and PTS (a mechanism by which people can invest in future 'third party' Bitshares DACs).
My investment in BTS is proportionate to my belief in the success of the BTS DAC.
My investment in PTS is proportionate to my belief that (a) there are/ will be developers out there creating future Bitshares DACs and (b) these developers will target PTS holders with a sharedrop in accordance with the social consensus. They will also target this demographic in the knowledge that PTS holders have a track record of evaluating the value propositions of a variety of Bitshares DACs (e.g. BTS, Music, Play, Sparkle etc.) and taking informed decisions on whether to invest further in their enterprise.
Obviously, developers are (and always have been) free to Sharedrop as they wish. However from what I've read and understood from the posts over the last few months, there is nothing to suggest a change the social consensus. From what I can tell, PTS is not only alive and well but has been upgraded, with most (including the exchanges) accepting the upgrade to DPOS-PTS.