Then your claim is wrong, there is no extra pay to the developer in the merger itself, YES?
I am well aware that, with community approval, VOTE can be used to pay the dev team for ongoing development, and I already previously stated I support it:
"I have no problem with sensible ongoing funding to the dev team, Bitcoin is paying $500 million each year to miners/pools/hardware vendor/electric company. Why would I object funding the Bitshare dev team? I could tell you right now, it's costs way less than $500 million for sure."
For some odd reason you cannot grasp the concept that VOTE is not only the mechanism to insure the devs get paid but also the leverage used to insure that the merger goes through. As daniel said himself:
1) We don't want to compete with ourselves and divide our network effect.
5) I don't want to have divided loyalties... I cannot serve two masters.
7) Our team will focus on no other DACs other than BitShares in general and work to make it the most robust and *FLEXIBLE* DAC out there.
If Vote was not implemented to insure dilution to pay for future development costs it would compete against BTSX as a separate DAC.
The merger itself is more about marketing and development funding through the existing stakeholder userbase and far less about confusion.
That is your speculation, I don't agree with it. I think the merger could have happened with or without VOTE. There has been a lot of talks of AGS/PTS merging into BTS previously, this is just such proposal coming true, and I fully support the merger as a AGS/PTS holder.