Invictus recommends to all developers using the Bitshares codebase to honor BTS PTS (aka Protoshares) holders with at least 10% as well as BTS AGS holders with at least 10%.
Bitshares XT is tested at the moment. You can look at it here and test it yourself
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4480.0;topicseen I knew Protoshares was the IPO coin, but didn't know about the other coin. The prices are much lower than what they used to be so its quite a good bargain being informed late

You are awarding 10% at the start as IPO. How are you distributing the remaining 90%? If you have another IPO for that I would be interested. Whatever you do, make it a fair one, even a proof of burn style process as Counterparty is the only new project which has any credibility. Look at what happens when you invest in a unfair distribution with greedy developers like that of Mastercoin, you get screwed as they try and make their money through deals with third party like Maidsafe.
Agree! (Perceived) Fairness correlates with how many people know about the possibilities, that is why the principle is to be as transparent as possible and make threads also here on BTT like this one. Everyone is welcome to join on our forums. Also Daniel and the whole team goes to conferences regularly to make Bitshares known as much as possible. We also head a lot of mainstream media coverage.
The rule is to give at least 10% to PTS/AGS. It is up to the developer of a DAC that uses Bitshares codebase to decide which allocation gets him the most support for his project. Mostly it is more than 10% for PTS/AGS...
With Bitshares X it was even 50/50. The snapshot for Bitshares X took place on the 28. February. There where delays due to problems with Bitshares X out of which DPOS came out as a solution.
We discussed the Maidsafe fiasco here
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4090.0 Finally the real reason for all the sudden interest comes out. You and your group awarded all to yourselves and are now promoting it. I don't know whether you really believe what you wrote in that post is it part of the act.
I don't think you developers should work for free, but you should be honest. If you want to award even 50%, state that clearly and others will still support. Trying to keep it hidden, awarding yourselves all and claiming it was fair later on won't fool us here. We have seen enough to spot when it happens. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as Bitshares are closely linked to the Ethereum group who even with all their advertising efforts couldn't fool the community with their IPO.
Good luck with your project. Its very interesting and anything which can emerge as an alternative to the cartel has my support. I will just wait for a Counterparty equivalent of your project.
I think you have misunderstood. The Bitshares X (the first family of DAC's) allocation is 50% to pts holders and 50% to ags holders. The developers are not directly being allocated equity. The only equity that the developers receive is that which they have paid for through pts or ags like everyone else. This "crowdfunding" method is without a doubt more transparent and fair than any of the alternatives. You can still buy or mine pts very cheaply, and you can still donate to ags addresses. Ags is particularly fair since the daily allocation of 10,000 ags split among donators proportional to their donations encourages those with greater funding capital to spread their donations over several days, which serves to increase the stake accumulated by smaller investors per day.
There won't be a Counterparty equivalent to the project. Bitshares DAC's use their own blockchains which allows for greater flexibility in what these DAC's can do. DPOS as explained before is a faster method of coming to consensus than pow mining. Any counterparty "equivalent" would be subject to the same slow transaction speeds as bitcoin. Additionally, its not feasible for counterparty to implement a bank an exchange like bitshares x on top of the bitcoin blockchain. Lastly, counterparty doesn't have enough funding because they decided to go with a proof of burn allocation model which is counterproductive.