1) I3 official DACs - Unlikely to be airdropped to a random altcoin. (Actually not sure how these allocations will work.)
This is true, The I3 DACs aren't going to be sharedropped. The problem is they'll take so long to release each one that the XT will probably be forked a few times before Bitshares X is even released and then Bitshares X will probably get forked too. Basically they are the leaders and everyone will have to upgrade their forks to follow what I3 invents until other people know enough to innovate.
2) DACs that are basically forks of altcoins to show off DPOS
This I don't agree with. The proper word is a merger. A fork of the altcoin would be basically taking all the features and technology they have and changing the logo. No one is suggesting that or at least I wasn't suggesting it. So you've left out mergers where two communities combine.
What advantage is there for example to fork the Bitshares technology and then call it Litecoin 2.0? I never could make sense of that. The people advocating that aren't advocating any custom BitAssets from the standard chain or any new features so it's just not interesting.
3) Independent DACs.
Independent DACs we do not really control.
#2 is where I agree with airdrops because it is basically the definition of a forked coin. The debate should be around finding it acceptable to honor PTS/AGS at a lower % than 10%/10%.
I think you've got some things wrong. 2) shouldn't exist because it would be pointless for us and them to "clone" a coin except pump and dump scenarios. What you'd do is make a custom DAC but it would be Bitshares underneath rather than their coin. So it's an entirely new thing for us and them. It would need to have custom BitAssets and the only reason to do this is to test out new BitAssets and invite new users into the Bitshares ecosystem.
As a result they don't deserve more than 50% of it. Of course if you just are lazy and fork it without any custom changes then why not make a fork of the fork, and then a fork of the fork of the fork?
The debate should be around finding it acceptable to honor at less than 50/50. Not the 10%. 10% is the minimum but considering how new the technology is why would you accept 10% now when you're dealing with brand new technology and our community is the biggest and earliest adopters of it?
#3 is going to be up to the developer. If someone writes a DAC then it will be up to them what mixture of allotment they wish to use. I am interesting in discussing this because of all the possible variations to align incentives. This is partially why I started this thread.
As long as they add new features, custom BitAssets, actual innovations, then an independent DAC is a great way to test things out without risking the main chain. Independent DACs can fail and are for bleeding edge but we need a bleeding edge.
#1 I3 DACs. Kinda pointless to even debate it here either, because I think Dan & others have changed their mind on the value of airdrops.
They never suggested that I3 DACs would support sharedrops. They specifically announced it would be 50/50 between PTS and AGS. They are stuck in that.
This is why I suggest non-I3 forks so that the community can create custom chains for Blackcoin, or just any Proof of Stake community which doesn't have the capability. Whichever fork has the most volume and network effect will win and 50/50 guarantees success.